University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student center: a promising practice study

(USC Thesis Other)

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student center: a promising practice study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

1

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Student Center: A Promising Practice Study

by

Kristine Catano

A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2017

Copyright 2017 Kristine Catano
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER 2
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................5
Intruduction to the Problem of Practice .....................................................................5
Organizational Context and Mission .........................................................................7
Organizational Performance Status ............................................................................8
Related Literature .......................................................................................................8
Importance of a Promising Practice Project ...............................................................9
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................11
Stakeholder Group for the Study ...............................................................................11
Purpose of the Project and Questions ........................................................................11
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .............................................................12
Definitions ..................................................................................................................13
Organization of the Project ........................................................................................14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................15
Stakeholder Knowledge Influencers ..........................................................................16
Knowledge Types ..........................................................................................16
Stakeholder Declarative Knowledge ..............................................................17
Stakeholder Procedural Knowledge ...............................................................17
Stakeholder Metacognitive Knowledge .........................................................23
Stakeholder Motivation Influencers ...........................................................................26
Motivation ......................................................................................................26
Self-efficacy Theory ......................................................................................27
Expectancy Value Theory ..............................................................................28
Stakeholder Organization Influencers ........................................................................31
Inclusion .........................................................................................................31
At-Risk Students and Retention .....................................................................33
Enviornmental Culture and At-Rish Students ................................................35
Conclusion .................................................................................................................37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................39
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .........................................................39
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .............................................................40
Assessment of Performance Influences .....................................................................41
Knowledge Assessment .................................................................................42
Motivation Assessment ..................................................................................43
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment ....................................................43
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Section .........................................................44
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ....................................................45
Recruitment ....................................................................................................45
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale ...............................................46
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER 3

Data Collection ..........................................................................................................46
Interviews .......................................................................................................47
Observation ....................................................................................................47
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................48
Credibility and Trustworthiness .....................................................................48
Role of Investigator ....................................................................................................49
Ethics ..........................................................................................................................50
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................51
Limitations .....................................................................................................51
Delimitations ..................................................................................................52
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .............................................................................................53
Findings for Knowledge Causes ................................................................................55
Findings for Motivation Causes .................................................................................67
Findings for Organization Causes ..............................................................................70
Summary ....................................................................................................................75
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
PLAN ANDS CONCLUSION ..................................................................................77
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge Influences ...........................78
Introduction ................................................................................................................78
Declarative Knowledge Solutions ..................................................................84
Procedural Knowledge Solutions ...................................................................85
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions .............................................................86
Motivation Recommendations ...................................................................................86
Organization Recommendations ................................................................................89
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ........................................................93
Implemetation and Evaluation Framework ....................................................93
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectation .............................................93
Level 4 Results and Leading Indicators .........................................................94
Level 3: Behavior ...........................................................................................95
Level 2: Learning ...........................................................................................98
Level 1: Reation .............................................................................................99
Data Analysis and Reporting .............................................................101
Summary ....................................................................................................................102
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ..............................................................103
Limitations .................................................................................................................103
Future Research .........................................................................................................104
Conclusion .................................................................................................................105
Appendix A: Interview Questions .........................................................................................107
Appendix B: Field Notes Format ...........................................................................................110
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER 4
Appendix C: Particpant Email ...............................................................................................111
Appendix D: Information Sheet .............................................................................................112
References ..............................................................................................................................115
Footnotes ................................................................................................................................125
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
More than twenty million students enrolled in colleges and universities across the United
States at the start of the Fall 2015 term (NECES, 2016). Of those 20 million students, it is
estimated 40% of those college students will leave without having completed their education
(DeBerard, Spielmans & Julka, 2004). Several college student populations are considered at risk
for attrition from, or not completing, their college education (Sanlo, 2005). At risk populations
include ethnic minorities, differently abled students, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender population (Sanlo, 2005). It is estimated that approximately 8.8% of the college-
going population identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) (Gates, 2006).
Research shows that LGBT college students face unique challenges when pursuing college
degrees (Espclage & Swearer, 2008; Gates, 2006; McKinley & Wright, 2011; Perez & Hussey,
2014; Salman, 2014; Sanlo 2005).
Some of the variation in completion rates between LGBT students and other students may
be explained by the unique needs of the LGBT student population. LGBT university students
have distinct student support needs and require specialized support when compared to their
heterosexual peers (Espclage & Swearer, 2008; McKinley & Wright, 2011; Perez & Hussey,
2014; Salman, 2014). LGBT students are at a higher risk for harassment (McKinley & Wright,
2011). LGBT students face intolerance and discrimination due to their sexual orientation or
gender identity (McKinley & Wright, 2011). In one study, 22% of LGBT students reported not
feeling safe in school settings compared with 7% of their heterosexual counterparts (Espclage &
Swearer, 2008). In addition to harassment and threats, LGBT students also reported high
occurrences of sexual assault. Seventy-three percent of LGBT students reported having been
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

6
sexually assaulted in the past (Perez & Hussey, 2014).
LGBT students may experience loss of financial support from unsupportive family
members due to a newly realized sexual orientation (Salman, 2014). Loss of financial support
can create additional challenges that, in some cases, may result in homelessness (McDermott,
Roen, & Scourfield, 2008). LGBT students experience higher rates of depression and
consequently, LGBT students have a higher risk of suicide attempts (Almeida, Johnson, Corliss,
Molnar, & Azrael, 2009). The challenges faced by LGBT students create barriers to college and
university retention and program completion. For these reasons, the lack of adequate support for
LGBT university students is a problem of practice.
There are approximately 5,300 colleges and universities in the United States (Sellingo,
2015). According to student outcomes research, each student requires individualized student
support (Agrawal & Ghosh, 2014). As Margarita Alonso explains in Best Inclusion Practices
(2013),
The problems that LGBT people face do not result simply from sex but also from the
consequences of the reality of their presence in society; the demands made by LGBT
organizations are based on an attempt to normalize their circumstances through social
inclusion and recognition. (p. 121)
In response to the unique needs of LGBT students, university and college campuses developed
student affairs-based centers to provide resources, counseling, programming and advocacy for
the LBGT community. Between 1996 and 2006, over 60 campuses established LGBT Centers
(Alonso, 2013). More than 100 LGBT Centers currently operate in the Unites States and most
are staffed by paid employees. (Henshaw, 2016).

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

7
Organizational Context and Mission
The problem of practice addressed in this study is inequitable student services,
specifically for LGBT staff, students and faculty. Specialized services, staff and training are
required to establish equitable services to all university and college students. The site for this
study, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Resource Center, is located on the campus of
University of California, Riverside (UC Riverside).
1
Located in Southern California, the
university is the most diverse campus in California and fifth most diverse in the nation (LGBT
Resource Center, 2015). UC Riverside has approximately 22,000 students (Demographic
Snapshot, 2014). UC Riverside was the first university in California to offer an LGBT center for
its student body. The campus offers an LGBT studies minor and provides a gender-neutral
housing option (Demographic Snapshot, 2014), and the institution earned a five-star rating, the
highest rating possible, as an LGBT friendly campus (LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index,
2015).
The director of the LGBT Resource Center has been employed with the organization
since 2000. In addition to the director, there are two other full-time staff: the assistant director
and the program coordinator. There are four part-time student assistants that assist with
administrative duties (LGBT Resource Center, 2015).
LGBT Resource Center’s mission is to provide “support, education and advocacy
regarding sexual orientation and gender identity for the UC Riverside campus community”
(LGBT Resource Center, 2015). The LGBT Resource Center strives to function as a campus
instrument to unite the LGBT community, allies and ensure both academic and social success for
all students. The organization provides LGBT students with a computer lab, community

1
Organization has agreed to be identified.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

8
outreach opportunities, mentor and peer matching, hosted weekly group discussions, LGBT
library, conferences and other social events (LGBT Resource Center, 2015).
Organizational Performance Status
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Resource Center provides
additional support to the UC Riverside LGBT campus community, including students, staff and
faculty (LGBT Resource Center, 2015). The number of LGBT students attending a college
campus is often under reported, however the director has estimated that 10% of the population is
LGBT (LGBT Resource Center, 2015). The student total population of UCR is 21,297 as of fall
2015 (University of California, 2015). According to director estimates, the current number of
students who actively utilize the center is approximately 350-400 students. The LGBT Resource
Center director predicts that UCR will have a more accurate view of the true LGBT population
after an optional question is added to the University of California admissions application
(University of California Riverside, 2015). The organization’s goal is for the LGBT Resource
Center is outreach to 100% of LGBTQ identifying students, staff and faculty attending UC
Riverside campus to offer support, education and advocacy regarding sexual orientation and
gender identity (LGBT Resource Center, 2015). This problem of practice is the lack of staff,
specialized training and LGBT specific services to create equitable opportunities for the LGBT
student population at universities and colleges. The organizational problem is inequitable
student support for LGBT students at higher education institutions.
Related Literature
Essential student services include any services, whether academic or not, which are
required to assist a student to complete his or her education program. Based on the increased
rates of harassment and assault against LGBT students, the LGBT student population requires a
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

9
different support system than their heterosexual peers, and colleges and universities are not
providing adequate level of support (McKinley & Wright, 2011; Perez & Hussey, 2014).
Universities and colleges typically have departments dedicated to a variety of student support
services. According to Bringle, Hatcher and Muthiah (2010), in order to ensure student success,
it is the ethical responsibility of a university to provide the necessary support to ensure student
success. Students’ needs vary greatly among individuals and between student groups.
Therefore, providing specialized student support for all students can be a daunting task.
However, Perez and Hussey (2014) echo the assertion of universities being morally and ethically
responsible to provide equitable support specifically to LGBT students.
Student services exist to motivate and assist students in the successful completion of their
university careers (McKinley & Wright, 2011; Perez & Hussey, 2014). Not all collegiate student
services, such as counseling or campus police, are inclusive of all sexual orientations and gender
identities (Perez & Hussey, 2014). Students fear retaliation or discrimination if sexual
orientation is disclosed with some student services organizations (Perez & Hussey, 2014).
Student services literature, such as brochures and pamphlets, may not list resources relevant to
LGBT students. For example, if literature does not state that counselors are trained in LGBT
services or experienced with LGBT students, the resource may be overlooked or dismissed
(McKinley & Wright, 2011). The Campus Accountability and Safety Act, which is currently
pending United States Senate approval, would require training for school officials regarding
LGBT sexual assault issues (McKinley & Wright, 2011). There is still significant need for
improved LGBT student services to meet the needs of the LGBT university student population.
Importance of a Promising Practice Project
Demonstrating success of an LGBT resource center is challenging because some students
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

10
may be uncertain or questioning their gender identity or sexual orientation. For others, personal
safety may be an issue. Other students worry information may be shared with those funding their
education. As such, students may wish to remain unidentified and untracked. However, there are
other indicators of success which can be examined when determining the success of an LGBT
center. Such indicators include LGBT Pride ranking, student participation and community
engagement (LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index, 2015; LGBT Resource Center, 2015).
University of California Riverside’s LGBT Resource Center is a successful organization
based on its ranking as a five-star campus, inclusive programs and variety of programs (LGBT-
Friendly Campus Climate Index, 2015; LGBT Resource Center, 2015). As a successful LGBT
resource center, it is important to examine the UC Riverside’s LGBT Resource Center
performance in comparison to the problem of practice. The problem of practice is inequitable
student services for LGBT students in colleges and universities. The LGBT Resource Center’s
performance goal is outreach to 100% of the university’s LGBT student population through
campus activities, community health education, student advising and crises intervention.
Knowing more about the facilitators that contribute to the staff’s continued pursuit of the goal is
important for a number of reasons.
Further study about the facilitators can help University of California, Riverside and other
institutions in the United States better meet the needs and requirements of LGBT students. The
results of the study will be applicable to students, student services organizations, and institutions
of higher education. The results of this study might allow other campuses to replicate the quality
of service being provided such that their LGBT students could focus on academic success instead
of sexual orientation or gender identity issues. If not solved, the increasing the number of
students identifying as LGBT could exacerbate the problem of practice and number of negative
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

11
consequences could rise (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2012). The specific organization, University
of California, Riverside’s LGBT Resource Center may benefit from exposure as a model
practice. The LGBT Resource Center anticipates the study will assist in highlighting unique
struggles of LGBT students and increase funding to the organization as a result of the study.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholder groups include staff, students, and faculty. Each stakeholder group both
benefits from and contributes to the continued success of the LGBT Resource Center’s mission.
Staff support students’ academic efforts at University of California, Riverside. Students provide
a diverse perspective from their peers. Faculty develop LGBT inclusive programs and
curriculum.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
A symbiotic relationship between stakeholders is required for continued achievements of
the University of California, Riverside LGBT Resource Center. For this study, the stakeholder
group of focus is the LGBT Resource Center staff. A complete analysis of the LGBT Resource
Center would involve all stakeholder groups. For practical purposes, one stakeholder group must
be selected for this study. It is important to understand how their role in the Center affects
students, who stand to benefit most from the Center. For these reasons, the stakeholder of focus
for this research study is the LGBT Resource Center staff.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this dissertation is to understand, from the staff’s perspective, the UC
Riverside LGBT Resource Center assets and barriers that enable it to meet or exceed its
performance goal related to LGBT student services. The analysis focuses on the assets of the
Center’s staff in the areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational resources.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

12
While a complete study would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder of
focus in this analysis is LGBT Resource Center Staff in relation to the students who utilize and
participate in LGBT Resource Center activities and services. The questions that will guide the
study are:
1. What knowledge, motivation and organizational assets do the LGBT Resource
Center and staff identify that contribute to the center’s outreach performance
goals?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of
inadequate resources at another organization?
The overall organizational goal provides a vehicle to assist as many LGBT-identifying
students at UC Riverside as possible with challenges relating to LGBT identity that they may
face while participating in university life. This study sought to identify the facilitators or assets
that help a resource center provide adequate student support for the LGBT population.
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
A qualitative data gathering and analysis were conducted to study the assets of the
University of California, Riverside’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Resource Center
in the areas of knowledge, motivation and organizational resources. The Resource Center’s
assets were studied using Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework (2008). The research
literature was examined for evidence –based assets, and then interviews and observations were
conducted to compare the work of the Center against the knowledge, motivation and
organizational resources identified by the research literature.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

13
Definitions
Attrition: ceasing to attend university of college and failure to successfully complete their
educational goals (Madgett & Balanger, 2008).
Bisexual: Individual who is attracted to more than one gender or gender identity
(Glossary of Terms, 2016).
Gay: A person attracted to the same gender (Glossary of Terms, 2016).
Gender identity: The deep and internal sense of being male, female, both or other. May or
may not be consistent with sex assigned at birth (Glossary of Terms, 2016).
Gender non-conforming: an individual whose behavior does not adhere to the traditional
gender expectations (Glossary of Terms, 2016).
Heterosexual: A sexual orientation with an individual being attracted to the opposite sex.
(Glossary of Terms, 2016).
Intersectionality: The overlapping of different power and identified, including but not
limited to race, gender, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status (Gunnarsson, 20017)
Latinx: Gender neutral term replacing Latino and/or Latina (Molina, 2016)
Lesbian: A female attracted to the same gender (Glossary of Terms, 2016).
LGBT resource center: A space on the campus of an educational institution which is
dedicated to the success of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender student (Fine, 2012).
LGBTQ: An acronym and all-encompassing term for lesbians, gay, bisexual, transgender
and queer or questioning (Glossary of Terms, 2016).
Pansexual: Attraction to individuals of all genders and gender expressions (Flanders, Le
Briton, Robinson, Bain & Caravaca-Morera, 2017)
Preferred Gender Pronouns: Pronouns selected by an individual (Sharer, 2016)
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

14
Queer: Formerly a pejorative term, now a reclaimed by those whose gender or sexual
orientation differ from limited definition of society (Glossary of Terms, 2016).
Retention: A student’s persistence in completing their academic goals (CAS, 2010).
Safe Space: Area Sensitive to the needs of students in terms of gender orientation or
sexual identity (Glossary of Terms, 2016).
Sexual orientation: One’s emotional and sexual attraction to others based on gender of
self and others i.e. heterosexual, gay, lesbian, queer (Glossary of Terms, 2016).
Student services: A number of assistance or amenities available to university or college
students, which are provided to aide in completion of educational goals (Nell & Cant,
2014).
Transgender: One whose gender identity, characteristics, presentation or expression does
not conform to the identity, characteristics presentation or expression of their assigned
biological sex (Glossary of Terms, 2016).
Organization of the Project
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provides an introduction and
overview of the topic. It also contains information regarding the importance of the topic and
pertinent concepts and terminology about LGBT student services. Chapter Two explores the
current literature surrounding the topic. Chapter Three details the methodology, including
participants, data collection and analysis. Chapter Four explains the findings from the qualitative
data. Chapter Five reviews the student and provides recommendations for improvements in
student services as well as areas of further research.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter Two outlines the research which contributes to effectively serving LGBT
students at University of California Riverside’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT)
Resource Center staff as the defining factor in the Center’s success. The first section provides an
overview of influencing factors of staff knowledge and skills and the construct of motivation as a
contributing factor to student satisfaction. The second segment focuses on organizational
influences on student services and later narrows focus on student services as a critical tool in
retention, providing adequate resources, and the role of student diversity groups. The chapter
ends with a summary of student services and learning, motivation and organization literature
with a brief introduction to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organization.
Clark and Estes (2008) established a foundation for resolving organizational performance
issues in Turning Research into Results. The aforementioned book provides guidance for
validating the causes of organizational performance problems, and ultimately applying an
appropriate and effective solution (Clark & Estes, 2008). The Clark and Estes (2008) model is
applicable to a variety of organizations, including educational institutions. Clark and Estes
(2008) developed the Knowledge, Motivation and Organization model, also known as the KMO
model, as an approach to identifying the causes of performance gaps within an organization.
This model posits that performance problems within an organization develop from a gap in one
or more of the areas of knowledge, motivation or organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Thus, in
order to develop solutions to organizational performance issues, one must examine all three
categories: knowledge and skills, motivation or organization for deficiencies (Clark & Estes,
2008). While certain performance problems overlap into two categories, every organizational
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

16
performance problem, including this dissertation’s problem of practice, can be traced back to
deficiencies in at least one of these categories (Clark & Estes, 2008). The following literature
review explores the relationship between the goal of 100% LGBT staff, faculty and student
outreach and assumed knowledge, motivation and organization assets and barriers in delivering
exemplary student services.
Stakeholder Knowledge Influencers
Knowledge Types
The following section of this dissertation reviews and summarizes the literature related to
the knowledge influencers that support the success of the staff in supporting students in higher
education institutions. There are several different types of knowledge as provided by Krathwohl
(2002). The first knowledge type is factual knowledge. Factual knowledge is information that is
isolated or a singular piece of information (Krathwohl, 2002). One example of factual
knowledge is the location of a LGBT center. The second type of knowledge is conceptual
knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is more complex than factual knowledge, and it is defined as
understanding how two pieces of information interact with each other (Krathwohl, 2002). One
example of conceptual knowledge is an individual understanding how students can find
assistance and resources at an LGBT center. The third type of knowledge, procedural
knowledge, pertains to the knowledge of all steps that are required to complete a task and the
actual ability to complete that task (Krathwohl, 2002). An example of procedural knowledge is
the ability of an individual to assess a student’s needs. The fourth knowledge type is
metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of one’s own cognitive
processes and strategies in acquiring knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). An example of
metacognitive knowledge is strategizing and creating a study plan for procedures based on
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

17
performance and performances weaknesses. Metacognitive knowledge requires one to reflect on
one’s own actions or learning in order to incorporate appropriate self-improvement strategies.
Stakeholder declarative knowledge influences. Declarative knowledge is the least
complicated knowledge type, and it is required for the administration of any organization,
including the LGBT resource centers.
Know the purposes and goals of an LGBT Center. One central piece of declarative
knowledge for successful LGBT student center staff is the knowledge of the numerous purposes
of LGBT centers at universities and colleges. The Council for the Advancement of Standards in
Higher Education (CAS) publishes best practices for a variety of student services and programs,
including LGBT student centers at colleges and universities (CAS, 2010). CAS is one example
of guidelines that may be used to organize and drive an LGBT student resource center at a
college or university.
Know available resources. LGBT resource center staff encourages students to utilize
center and campus resources and reduce the number of obstacles that prevent students from
completing their education (Westbrook, 2009). Resource center staff are often the first contact
for student concerns, especially for LGBT-specific needs (Sanlo, 2000). Staff must know the
campus resources and departments and how these departments can help students in order to
effectively advise students (Sanlo, 2000). Knowing available university resources can help staff
direct students to appropriate resources.
Stakeholder Procedural knowledge influences. Procedural knowledge is a slightly
more complicated knowledge set, which concerns the application of a process (Krathwohl,
2002). The use of procedural knowledge is imperative to LGBT resource centers’ operations.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

18
Know how to influences student retention. In order to understand the role of student
services, it is necessary to understand the importance of retention and the strategies and services
that a unit, like an LGBT resources center, engages in that support retention. Consistent
enrollment is important for students, who are investing significant time and resources into
completing a college degree. Consistent enrollment is also important for maintaining the
budgetary goals and mission of universities and colleges. While the primary intake of students
provides an initial influx of students, there is no guarantee students will persist through to the
completion of their academic goals. One of the most important ways of ensuring retention is via
a student-centered approach by university student services (Marr, Nicoll, Truer, Jolar & Palmero,
2013).
Student affairs-based retention efforts often target certain, at-risk populations of students.
Typically, special attention and services are given to minority, disadvantaged or differently-abled
students to address challenges and to ensure retention (Sanlo, 2004). CAS determines that one of
the primary goals of LGBT student centers is retention, or persistence, of LGBT students to
ensure completion of their degrees (CAS, 2010). LGBT student centers serve universities and
colleges as a retention effort for a marginalized population, and ensure students are sufficiently
comfortable on campus so they remain in class (Edkins, Taylor & Tracey, 2016). Providing
students with leadership opportunities also correlates with higher retention rates (Nicol, 2011),
and successful LGBT student centers would be expected to offer such opportunities.
One major strategy positively impacting retention is individualized student services, such
as advisement, counseling and tutoring (AlKandari, 2008). Specialized services are especially
effective when directed at marginalized populations, such as the LGBT student population
(Sanlo, 2004). Resources centers, such as an LGBT student center, are often charged with
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

19
providing specialized advisement, counseling and tutoring and would be expected to continue to
develop retention efforts specifically tailored to the needs of LGBT students.
How to implement effective outreach strategies. LGBT student center staff must be well
versed in community outreach in order to affect students and effectively encourage participation
(Betteley, Harr, & Lee, 2013). Some programs are directed to assist underrepresented students
(Domina, 2009). Although outreach is not mandatory (Domina, 2009), successful student
outreach motivates students to participate in extracurricular activities, become vested in their
university and ultimately, positively affect academic performance (Betteley et al., 2013). Having
some form of community outreach will assist any LGBT resource center in reaching a larger
number of students and the university community (Domina, 2009). Effective outreach informs
the community and it also encourages community action (Betteley et. al., 2013). According to
research, successful outreach requires several critical steps, including recruitment, student
interaction, communication, purposeful planning, and publications and programming (Betteley,
et al., 2013). It also indirectly encourages socialization.
How to create a safe space. LGBT centers provide resources and referrals to students,
faculty and staff but also may serve as a safe social environment (CAS, 2010; Mobley &
Johnson, 2015; Wood, Kissel & Miller, 2016). LGBT student centers create those safe
environments, also known as safe spaces or safe zones. Safe zones are areas on campus where
students are free to express their gender identity or sexual orientation without fear of judgment or
hostility (Wood et al., 2016). LGBT centers serve as both safe zones to those who are LGBT
(Mobley & Johnson, 2015), and as a gathering place for LGBT students. Providing a gathering
location on campus also increases visibility of LGBT students, staff and faculty (CAS, 2010).
LGBT resource center staff must be able to create safe spaces, support and counsel LGBT
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

20
students, staff and faculty, foster communication and socialization, and deal with sensitive
matters with confidentiality. LGBT student centers provide an environment for students, staff
and faculty to express their gender identities and sexual orientations.
How to peer counsel. Universities and colleges provide LGBT students with various
specialized services to help ensure LGBT student retention and each centers’ program offerings
will differ depending on the institution. Some LGBT student centers offer specialized services
such as peer counseling, physical and mental health referrals and academic support as well as
address any other needs exclusively pertaining to LGBT students (CAS, 2010).
How to communicate about LGBT matters. Before attending the university, LGBT
students may have had negative experiences with staff and administration in their previous
secondary education (Squire & Norris, 2014) or family. University LGBT resource centers often
function as safe zones (CAS, 2010; Westbrook, 2009) and require specialized communication
skills. Nevins, Stanulis and Russell (2000) cite two important purposes of mentoring as
establishing trust and communication in mentoring and conversations as a tool for mentoring
(Bulu & Yildirim, 2008). Facilitating open communication within the safe zone allows staff to
build trust and therefore effectively communicate with students (Bulu & Yildirim, 2008). LGBT
student centers must be proficient in procedural knowledge of facilitating effective
communication in order to build trust (Yamamoto, Tagami & Nakazwa, 2012). Additionally,
LGBT staff may also develop respect from students by maintaining confidentiality when
appropriate (CAS, 2010). In order to build trust with students, LGBT center staff must
communicate clearly and express empathy and appropriate emotion (Yamamoto et al., 2012).
Staff also use conversation in order to mentor.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

21
Directing conversation and defining the roles of the staff-student relationship will help build trust
with students as well (Bulu & Yildirim, 2008). In order to support trust, communication must be
a regular occurrence between LGBT student center staff and students (Bulu & Yildirim, 2008;
Yamamoto, et. al., 2012). When staff navigates careful and purposeful communication with
students, communication can maximize benefits for both parties.
How to facilitate socialization. According to CAS (2010), the staff at LGBT student
centers should be trained in organizational development and group dynamics (CAS, 2010).
LGBT resource center staff should know how to facilitate socialization among the LGBT
community at the institution (Westbrook, 2009). Westbrook (2009) explains, “LGBT student
groups offer a place to meet other LGBT students and LGBT centers and activist student groups
work to fight against discrimination on campus” (p. 370). Group communication skills are
useful in engaging groups of students. Staff employed by LGBT centers requires staff to
collaborate as a group with students and other university administration (CAS, 2010). Key
communication factors include discussing LGBT matters include comfort in LGBT subject
matter, showing genuine support, being knowledgeable of the subject matter, and the
organization being LGBT friendly (Messinger, 2013).
How to function as or encourage allies. Organizers of safe zones undergo special
training to meet the distinct challenges of LGBT student allies (Wood, et. al., 2016). Both
LGBT students and allies can become advocates for LGBT issues (McKinley & Wright, 2011;
Westbrook, 2009; Young & McKibban, 2014), both formally and informally. There are many
formal and informal ways LGBT student centers can serve as a refuge for LGBT students.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

22
How to encourage participation. After the LGBT center is established as a safe zone,
staff are responsible for providing students with the opportunities for recreational time and
participation in the center’s facilitated activities (Mobley & Johnson, 2015). For LGBT groups,
activities are often in the form of community activism (CAS, 2010), but also may include book
readings, dances, and guest speakers. Larger student bodies have an increased need for
organized diversity issue confrontation within the community (Fine, 2012) and specific
communication approaches. Staff must consider the variations among the population and still be
able to maintain an inclusive environment (CAS, 2010). LGBT center staffs also familiarize
themselves with the differences and similarities between undergraduate and graduate student
interests and various strategies for groups and subgroups within the center.
How to individualize support. While a number of students’ needs may be similar, it is
necessary for LGBT centers to provide individualized support to each student (Agrawal &
Ghosh, 2014). When applying counseling strategies, LGBT resource center staff should consider
the unique needs of the student. The first, and most important, step involved in serving the
student is determining or assessing what services the student will require (Marr et al., 2013).
Student specific services include counseling, service learning projects, advisement, scholarships,
and mentoring (AlKandari, 2008; Bringle et al., 2010; Marr et al., 2013). The primary goal of
student services is nurturing the development of students, and special consideration should be
given to any students whose needs may differ from the majority (Ivory, 2005).
Procedural knowledge is required for an organization to persist. The staff of an LGBT
resource center must know several procedures. First, staff must know how to create safe spaces.
Staff also must know how to counsel and support LGBT students, staff and faculty. Staff
members must know how to foster communication and socialization through appropriate
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

23
communication methods. Staff must know how to deal with sensitive LGBT matters. In
conclusion, knowledge and ability to implement procedures are important to providing adequate
student support to higher education students and staff.
Metacognitive knowledge influences. According to Baker (2006), “The term
metacognition literally means cognition about cognition, or more informally, thinking about
thinking” (p. 1). Metacognitive knowledge influences involve self-reflection (Baker, 2006).
Metacognitive knowledge influences affect performance because the previous performance is
reflected upon and analyzed in order to make decisions that will benefit the organization,
institution and community moving forward (Baker, 2006). In more complicated scenarios, one
must reflect on previous learning in order to adjust current strategies that have proven to be
inefficient (Baker, 2006). Individuals possess the benefit of thought awareness, learning, and
control of their learning (Baker, 2006). Individual specific strategies are created as a result of
regular self-reflection. Strategizing planning, monitoring progress, and assessing one’s
approaches, is utilizing metacognitive thought. LGBT resource center staff should regularly
analyze and reflect on data and make budgetary decisions based on reflection.
Using data to improve performance. As previously mentioned, much of the pertinent
procedural knowledge revolves around communication skills and functions of the LGBT center.
While communication is important in determining the needs of students and collecting feedback
and data, equal importance also lies with the self-assessment of one’s previous performance to
strategize whether the current approach is effective. LGBT resource center staff is privy to
confidential and sensitive information (CAS, 2010). As such, gathering LGBT student data
presents a unique challenge. Not all students wish to be identified. The first step in the process
of data reflection is gathering the relevant student feedback or data. Feedback can be useful in
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

24
making decisions, however there are special considerations to be made. Data collection must
occur strategically, and the staff must know how to collect data. CAS (2010) notes that all
LGBT centers’ performance should be monitored regularly and based on the evaluations;
adjustments may be made in order to improve the center (CAS, 2010). Accurate data is needed
to make well-informed decisions and solve problems. LGBT resource center staff must be able
to explain the importance of their work, and know how to interpret the data gathered through
their work. Informed budgetary and programming decisions can be made based on data.
Metacognitive knowledge is expected at LGBT resource centers. LGBT center staff
should make decisions in order to improve the organization. LGBT students are a subset within
the university population, and their presence and opinions should be voiced equally to their non-
LGBT classmates (Mobley & Johnson, 2015). While public universities are more likely to have
larger resources (Fine, 2012), all universities should have LGBT counseling centers and
inclusive spaces (McKinley & Wright, 2011) with pertinent course offerings (Mobley &
Johnson, 2015), and communications specifically directed to LGBT students (McKinley &
Wright,
2011). In summary, it is assumed that analyzing of student feedback and organization changes
resulting from student feedback serve as a contributing factor to an LGBT resource center’s
success.
Summary. There is a wide array of knowledge, which LGBT centers must possess in
order to be successful. LGBT resource center staff must know the purpose LGBT student
centers serve, retention influences, goals of student success, and available student resources.
Staff must know how to communicate professionally and confidentially with students and
colleagues that provide additional student support. Staff should know how to facilitating the
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

25
university social experience. Staff must be familiar with techniques to motivate not only
students and allies but also the broader campus communities. Staff must provide safe spaces that
are respectful of student, staff and faculty gender identities and sexual orientations.
Table 1 Summary of Promising Student Services Practices for Employees: Knowledge
Influence Table
Assumed Assets of Student
Services Staff at LGBT Resource
Center
Literature
Knowledge
Declarative

Know purpose of LGBT
Resource Centers

Know the University’s goals for
student success

Know campus and local
resources for referrals

Know effective retention
strategies and how the work of
the Center contributes to overall
retention efforts

Know
industry best practices: purpose
of retention and outreach

Procedural

(CAS, 2010; Edkins, Taylor
& Tracey, 2016; Krathwohl,
2002; McKinley & Wright,
2011; Mobley & Johnson,
2015; Nicol, 2011; Sanlo,
2004; Young & McKibban,
2014; Wood, Kissel &
Miller, 2016)

Staff members know how to
create safe

Know how to counsel and
support LGBT students, staff and
faculty.

(Bulu & Yildirim,
2008; CAS, 2010; Fine,
2012; Krathwohl,
2002; Messinger,
2013; Mobley & Johnson,
2015; Nevins Stanulis and
Russell, 2000; Squire &

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

26
Know when and how to refer
students to appropriate resources.

Know how to foster
communication and socialization

Know how to deal with sensitive
LGBT matters with
confidentiality and respect

Norris, 2014; Westbrook,
2009; Yamamoto, Tagami
& Nakazwa, 2012;
Young & McKibban, 2014)

Metacognitive

Analyze and reflect on data
collected and adjust activities
accordingly

Make budgetary allocations
based on analysis of performance

Articulate how their role
supports retention

(Baker, 2006; CAS,
2010; Fine, 2012; McKinley
& Wright, 2011; Mobley &
Johnson, 2015)

Stakeholder Motivation Influencers
Motivation
Staff motivation influences operations at any organization. The following section of this
dissertation reviews the literature that is focused on the motivation related influences that pertain
to maintaining or increasing student support for LGBT resource centers at colleges and
universities. There are a number of theories regarding motivation that seek to explain and help
understand the process of and factors contributing to motivation. All or some of these can be
applicable to any given organization.
Often, when dealing with the public, employees become jaded and ideals are weakened
(Kieldsen, 2012), resulting in problems with employee motivation. There are three key factors
that demonstrate high levels of motivation. The first is active choice, which is the decision to
take action (Clark, 2015). The second is persistence, which is continuation of effort towards the
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

27
task that has commenced (Clark, 2015). The final factor is perseverance, which is exerting
consistent effort through to the completion of a given task (Clark, 2015). If there is a deficiency
in any one of these key indices, a motivation issue exists. Motivation factors are important
because it is one of the three potential problems with performance (Clark, 2015), and motivation
issues are often overlooked. Due to the potential motivational impact, it is important to explore
motivational factors that are applicable to the LGBT student services. Specifically, two
motivation theories, Self-Efficacy Theory and Utility Value Theory, are believed to be
particularly applicable to explaining the successful support of LGBT students and staff.
Self-efficacy theory. Regular feedback and modeling of exceptional strategies increases
an individual’s self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy is helpful in motivating staff. Pajares
(2006) explains that having high self-efficacy can positively affect motivation. A positive
correlation exists between an individual expecting to have a positive outcome on a task and
motivation and learning (Pajares, 2006), thus it is encouraged that supervisorial staff impress on
subordinates that subordinates are fully capable of completing a task or procedure (Pajares,
2006). In addition to encouragement, supervisors can reward task completion and model task
completion to experience positive results (Pajares, 2006). When an individual believes they will
have a positive outcome, they are more likely to be successful and thus remain motivated to
complete the tasks
Staff self-efficacy. A high level of self-efficacy among staff is thought to be a
contributing factor in the motivation of student services staff. Pajares (2006) explains that
receiving feedback and modeling behavior helps to increase self-efficacy. Student service
departments should receive constant feedback from students and fellow staff regarding various
services and interactions. Feedback from students is especially important in student services and
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

28
should be monitored consistently (Stukalina, 2014).
High expectations for success. Having high expectations of success creates confidence
and can positively impact motivation (Eccles, 2006), so one might expect that high performing
LGBT center staff would have high expectations for themselves and for their team.
Additionally, seeing staff in action helps to ensure motivation (Stukalina, 2014).
Model appropriate behavior and expectations. Stukalina (2014) emphasizes the
importance of staff efforts to model appropriate behavior and motivation. Staff’s interactions are
directly related to how satisfied and motivated students and student staff will be at their college
or university. In return, students become motivated to participate in the LGBT student centers.
High level of self-efficacy among staff is likely a contributing factor for the success experiences
by the UC Riverside LGBT Resource Center.
Expectancy-value theory. Expectancy-Value Theory explains factors contributing to an
individual’s level of motivation. This theory posits that employing discourse which imparts the
importance and value of a task helps the learner to be motivated to succeed (Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003). If an individual has a vested interest in the work they are doing and places high
value on that work, it motivates them to complete the task (Eccles, 2006). When learners receive
positive feedback on the completion of their work, it creates confidence in learners. Employee
confidence ultimately results in increased motivation (Borgogni, Russo & Latham, 2011). By
connecting new materials to learners’ previously formed interest and previously formed task
values, one can increase motivation.
Value the work. When staff perceive a high degree of value in performing their job
duties, it is believed to play a role in explaining the motivation and success of a staff. Eccles
(2006) explains, “Learning and motivation are enhanced if the learner values the task” (p. 1). If
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

29
an individual values a task, she or he will be better at learning the task and motivated to retain
any information taught (Eccles, 2006). LGBT center staff work to organize and facilitate
activism and workshops (Young & McKibban, 2014). Commitment to this responsibility
requires staff dedication to the cause (Young & McKibban, 2014).
Monitor performance and share feedback. Student satisfaction is important to student
services and should be monitored vigilantly (Stukalina, 2014), thus LGBT resource centers are
required to takes steps to monitor their performance. When staff receives positive feedback, it
results in continued motivation. Such feedback increases the value of the staff’s day-to-day
tasks. The LGBT Resource Center focuses on important issues relevant to the university, such as
course content, environment safety, comfort, support from teachers and staff, and computer labs
(Stukalina, 2014). Working with the public requires staff to maintain consistent motivation to
serve the public, and this is often achieved by seeing results from serving the public (Kieldsen,
2012). A successful LGBT center is believed to partly be a result of the staff having a high
degree of value invested in performing their job-related duties.
Table 2 Summary of Promising Student Services Practices for Employees Motivation
Influence Table

Assumed Promising Practices of
Student Services at LGBT
Resource Center
Literature
Motivation

Staff Self Efficacy

(Clark, 2015; Kieldsen,
2012; Pajares, 2006)

Individual staff believe
they have the ability to
successful expand the
Resource Center’s
programs
(Eccles, 2006; Pajares,
2006; Pintrich,
2003; Stukalina, 2014)

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

30

Staff is confident in the
team’s ability to
successfully expand the
Resource Center’s
programs

Staff believes the
continued expansion of
the breadth of programs
will make the LGBT
Resource Center more
attractive to potential
members

Utility Value

Staff members believe it
is important for them to
provide a wide variety of
programming (Utility
Value)
(Borgogni et al.,
2011; Eccles, 2006;
Kieldsen, 2012; Pintrich,
2003; Seider, Rabinowicz &
Gilmor, 2011; Stukalina,
2014)

(Borgogni et al.,
2011; Eccles, 2006;
Kieldsen, 2012; Pintrich,
2003; Seider, Rabinowicz &
Gilmor, 2011; Stukalina,
2014)

(Borgogni et al.,
2011; Eccles, 2006;
Kieldsen, 2012; Pintrich,
2003; Seider, Rabinowicz &
Gilmor, 2011; Stukalina,
2014)

Stakeholder Organization Influencers
Clark and Estes (2008) describes organizational gaps as “the lack of efficient and
effective organizational work processes and material resources” (p. 103). An organization may
effectively train and motivate, but without the organizational scaffolding in place to support
success, there will be a performance gap as a result (Clark & Estes, 2008). Defining culture is
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

31
challenging and to some considered wholly abstract (Schein, 2004). If an individual’s character
determines his or her behaviors, then organizational culture determines the behavior of group
members with shared values (Schein, 2004). Organizational culture is the collection of values of
held by a unit or group of people.
An organization can affect performance of employees through organizational culture.
Organizational culture consists of three major components, the environment culture, group
culture and the individual’s culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizations consist of individuals
from different cultures. With each individual having a different personal culture, a collection of
individual cultures creates the organizational culture can become a uniting factor (Clark & Estes,
2008). In other words, the diversity can unite staff. Organizational culture is cultivated by
implicit or explicit means (Clark & Estes, 2008). Student services fosters an environment in the
organization, an organizational culture, focusing on individual student needs, inclusion and
retention.
Inclusion
Maintaining a student-centric culture within a university’s student services cultivates and
maintains a sense of inclusion amongst the student body, which is critical to retention. O’Keeffe
(2013) explains a sense of belonging is the most important aspect of retention. Students develop
a sense of connection to an organization when a relationship has been cultivated with at least one
other person within the institution (O’Keeffe, 2013). A student’s decision to persist at a
university or college is impacted with as little as one connection with another individual involved
at the university (O’Keeffe, 2013). Developing a relationship with a counselor, mentor, or
advisor can play a large role in developing a sense of belonging (AlKandari, 2008) and thus, the
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

32
retention of enrolled students. Student services must maintain a student-centered approach to
foster a sense of belonging and inclusion throughout the university.
How inclusion can help. Inclusion impacts retention in many ways. Having a lack of
connection causes students to become unengaged or less connected with the university both
socially and academically (Marr et al., 2013). Developing academic and social relationships has
a positive impact by increasing retention at colleges and universities (Madgett & Balanger 2008).
O’Keeffe (2013) explains, “students, feeling rejected and not being able to develop a sense of
belonging within higher education is a key cause of student attrition,” (p. 1). Lacking academic
and social relationships, students who are overwhelmed and under connected continue to become
disengaged and disconnected to their university or college (Marr et al., 2013). Knowledgeable
and experienced student affairs or student services staff members are well equipped to discuss
challenges with students (Seifert, 2014). Knowledgeable and experienced staff provide a two
dimensional approach to guaranteeing retention; first, addressing the problem through direct
intervention and second, creating a sense of connection with the student by counseling.
Environmental culture of inclusion. Organizational culture is succinctly defined by
Clark and Estes (2008) as “the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes learned as
people develop over time in our family and in our work environments” (p. 108). Since
organizations consist of individuals from different cultures, organizational culture can become a
uniting factor (Clark & Estes, 2008). If an individual’s character determines his or her
behaviors, then organizational culture determines the behavior of group members with shared
values (Schein, 2004).
Organizations can approach culture and cultural change in one of three different
strategies: culture in the environment, culture in groups, and culture in individuals (Clark &
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

33
Estes, 2008). One aspect is environmental culture. Clark and Estes (2008) explain the approach,
“changing the culture of the organization can change performance” (p.108). This approach
posits that change in the environment can affect an organization’s work environment and
employees’ performance. Creating new patterns can have a lasting effect on an organization.
Under this approach, a student’s environment would be indicative of the student retention. In
other words, if an institution establishes a culture, which places high value on retention, that high
value of retention and student success would transfer to student services staff. A student-
centered approach to student services ensures student retention by engraining this support in the
university’s environment and creates a culture of inclusion.
At-Risk Students and Retention
As previously mentioned, student services utilize several strategies to increase student
retention. A number of populations within the student body are considered at risk for attrition of
currently enrolled or actively attending students. Attrition is defined as when a student ceases to
attend university and does not successfully complete the program (Madgett & Balanger, 2008).
One example of an at-risk population within a university or college is financially challenged
students (Madgett & Balanger, 2008). This subset of the student population is not able to or does
not know how to access many student services that are available for assistance (Madgett &
Balanger, 2008). Lack of access or lack of knowledge to access student services weakens the
relationship between the university and student (Madgett & Balanger, 2008). Other student
populations that are considered at-risk for attrition include students with disabilities, students
suffering from mental health issues, and ethnic minority students (O’Keeffe, 2013). Student
centered service offers a strong approach to retention of at-risk students. Student services should
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

34
direct intervention and assistance efforts to at-risk students and efforts should be implemented as
early as possible (Marr et al., 2013) in order to minimize attrition and maximize retention.
Resources available to students. By providing a variety of resources to students,
universities ensure that students maintain a focus on academics. However, simply having a
variety of resources does not mean students will access them. Resources must also be publicized
and easily accessible in order to impact student use and therefore retention (Madgett & Balanger,
2008). Outreach for resources should not be limited to first time freshmen orientation, and
resources should continue to be made available throughout the student’s career (Madgett &
Balanger, 2008).
Managing students’ needs. Student services can guide, advise, and assist students in
managing their needs and responsibilities. As students progress in their program of study, their
lives become increasingly overwhelming. One asset of experienced student services staff is
familiarity with advising in the balance and management of responsibilities (Seifert, 2014).
O’Keeffe (2013) explains that it is important to make students feel cared for when advising
students. A caring and inquisitive tone in the principal interaction can be helpful in increasing
retention and assessing student needs.
Identifying student resources. Student services bridge current students to available
resources by first identifying students’ needs, locating the appropriate resources, and directing
students to assistance. It is the responsibility of student service staff to maintain knowledge of
all the available resources that could resolve the issues preventing students’ academic progress
(O’Keeffe, 2013). Students feeling rejected and disconnected to the university or college are the
cause of attrition (O’Keeffe, 2013). O’Keeffe (2013) asserts, “it is the higher education
institution, which must seek to create a welcoming environment, where care, warmth and
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

35
acceptance are promoted, in order to achieve improved student retention,” (p. 1). Student
services officers should be able to assist students with managing personal responsibilities, access
to, and navigation of resources (Martin, Galentino & Townsend, 2014).
Environmental culture and at-risk students. Organizations can approach the
development of culture by focusing one of three different aspects of culture: culture of the
environment, culture of a group, and culture of the individuals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Strong
leadership cultivates dedicated students, staff, and, as a result, the organization’s culture (Schein,
2004; Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996). Schein (2004) explains that culture is a concept that
occurs below the surface, thus students may not realize a student-centered university
environment is affecting them. In order to change a student’s attitude, the culture of the
organization must change first (Kezar, 2001). In this approach, culture is viewed as a product of
being in a particular environment (Clark & Estes, 2008). By establishing the environment as one
that prioritizes students, universities can foster a culture that supports at-risk students (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Universities can create an environment, which nurtures at-risk students, including
minority groups, with a student-centered student services approach.
Minority Groups. Ethnic minority students are a population at-risk for attrition. As a
minority, students are likely to seek others like themselves within a university setting (Ivory,
2005). Minority groups, assemble different minorities, ethnic and otherwise differing from the
majority, within student service to facilitate this process. This study focuses on a minority group
formed from University of California Riverside’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource
Center. Due to safety and social stigma, the LGBT student population may be hesitant to
identify themselves on campus (Ivory, 2005). Additionally, LGBT students may still be in the
process of accepting their orientation or gender identity and not ready to seek assistance from
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

36
university officials regarding this process (Ivory, 2005). LGBT student groups help to facilitate
students’ self-identification in order to focus on academic responsibilities.
Minority groups and retention. Minority groups’ students are considered to be on the
fringe of the general population and at risk of attrition (Ellis, 2009; Vaserfirer, 2012). Minority
groups assist in retention by creating a sense of belonging and inclusiveness not only within the
group but the rest of the university (Ellis, 2009; Vaserfirer, 2012). Through LGBT groups on
campus, students learn to engage with other students and help to construct positive perception of
the LGBT population on campus (Vaserfirer, 2012). Additionally, LGBT groups increase
visibility and attract new members through outreach (Vaserfirer, 2012). LGBT groups create a
supportive atmosphere and further positive change through work with racial or ethnic minority
groups (Poynter, 2008). Fostering an organizational culture, focused on retention of minority
students, can bring a sense of inclusion to students on the fringe of attrition.
Group culture and minority groups. There are benefits of having minority student
representation on campus. On occasion, inequalities are developed in an organization (Agocs,
1997). By acknowledging the minority groups’ histories and traditions, student services can
facilitate group and institutional change (Kezar, 2001). If an organization constructs its culture
as a group, then culture shifts should be addressed to the entire groups. Clark and Estes (2008)
explain, “Cultural patterns can be changed by changing the beliefs and knowledge of groups of
people at work” (p. 108). While minority groups’ cultures may differ or sometimes clash with
the culture of the rest of the student body (Clark & Estes, 2008), by providing minority groups a
gathering space, student services develop an opportunity to change the group’s culture as needed.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

37
Table 3 Staff Summary of Promising Student Services Practices for Employees: Organization
Influencers
Assumed Assets of Student
Services at LGBT Resource
Center
Literature
Develops a culture of inclusion

Engaging diversity groups
creates group culture of inclusion

(Ellis, 2008; Ivory, 2005;
Locke & Latham, 1990;
Nabila, 2005; Marr, Nicoll,
von Treuer, Kolar &
Palermo, 2010; Ray,
Chinmoy & Ghosh, 2014;)

University resources must be
available to support students
and their individual needs

(Clark, 2015; Eccles, 2006;
Kieldsen, 2012; Nabila,
2005; Marr, Nicoll, von
Treuer, Kolar & Palermo,
2010; Martin, Galentino &
Townsend, 2014)

Team members invoke the
organization’s culture and act
in conjunction with the needs
of the organization

University leadership must
provide resources to LGBT
center staff
(Ivory, 2005; Martin,
Galentino & Townsend,
2014; Poynter & Tubbs,
2008; Roper, 2005;
Vasserfeir, 2012)

Conclusion
Chapter 2 explored the research literature regarding the knowledge, motivation and
organization of successful student affairs services and applied the findings to the LGBT
Resource Center. The stakeholder of focus in this study must consistently excel in these key
areas in order to ensure continued success. Additionally, this chapter explored the framework of
this research study, Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis, and applied the framework to the
staff’s knowledge, motivation and organization.
As a result of a review of the applicable literature, this proposal will seek to validate
several key attributes in order to explain the continued success of the University of California
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

38
Riverside LGBT Resource Center. First, one would expect that knowledge and skills influencers,
particularly declarative, procedural and metacognitive knowledge types, are contributing to the
success of the organization. Second, motivational influencers, specifically utility value theory,
ensure exemplary student services. Finally, this proposed study seeks seek to validate how the
organizational assets, specifically cultural influencers of successful student support centers’
organizational culture affect staff members’ success. The above are the assumed assets of
University of California Riverside’s LGBT Resource Center. The process for validating the
aforementioned assets is presented in Chapter 3.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

39
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Due to the small number of staff at the University of California Riverside LGBT
Resource Center, the assumed knowledge, motivation and organization assets and barriers were
best examined through qualitative research. For this study, variation of the sample was not an
option. Creswell (2006) recommends the collection of data consist of at least two data collection
methods in order to optimize triangulation of data. The two methods used for this study are
observation and individual interviews.
The study sought to validate the assets and barriers applicable to the current staff of the
UCR LGBT Resource Center. The purpose of qualitative study as established by Merriam
(2009) is to develop an understanding of a situation from the unique perspective of the subject.
In this study, the stakeholder of focus was the staff of the LGBT Resource Center. The criteria
for inclusion and the data collection methodology are explained in this chapter.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this proposal was to identify the assets and barriers which contribute to
the University of California Riverside’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Resource
Center’s successful attainment of its performance goal of outreach to 100% of LGBT student,
staff and faculty. An introduction to the problem of practice was outlined in Chapter 1. The
LGBT Resource Center maintains a robust participant attendance in its events and programming.
This study seeks to identify and examine the exemplary knowledge and skills, motivation and
organizational attributes and barriers of the LGBT Resource Center’s staff. These knowledge,
motivation and organization qualities were then compared to those identified in the literature
review in Chapter 2, in hopes organizational models similar models may be implemented in
other student services areas.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

40
The staff, as the group with primary responsibility for delivering the services of the
LGBT Resource Center, served as the primary stakeholder group in this study. The seven staff
members are responsible for day-to-day operations and organizational planning. The following
questions guided the proposed study’s attempt to clarify any assets or barriers to the ability of the
staff to meet their performance goal:
1. What knowledge, motivation and organizational assets does the LGBT Resource
Center staff have that contribute to the center’s outreach goals?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another organization?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The conceptual framework utilized in this proposed study was based on the Clark and
Estes (2008) book, Turning Research into Results. The Clark and Estes (2008) framework
examines the causes of organizational performance issues through a gap analysis. Clark and
Estes (2008) assert that organizational performance gaps develop from organizations gaps or
shortcomings in one of more of the areas of knowledge or skills, motivation and organization.
By examining an organization’s performance in these three areas, one can locate the performance
gaps, identify the cause of the issue, and make appropriate recommendations for improvements
or continuation.
Clark and Estes (2008) developed a gap analysis process to determine the root causes of
performance issues within an organization. The first step in the gap analysis process is
comparing an organization’s established goals with the organization’s current achievement.
Performance gaps are identified when an organization fails to meet its established performance
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

41
goals (Clark and Estes, 2008). Knowledge, motivation and organizational assets and barriers are
then individually examined as the causes for lack of goal achievement (Clark and Estes, 2008).
After the cause has been established, recommendations for solutions or improvements can be
explored. Next, a solution is developed and implemented. Lastly, the effectiveness of the
implemented solution must be evaluated. Evaluation of a solution is a crucial step in determining
the success in closing the performance gap, and whether or not modifications or additional
solutions are needed. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model supports the triangulation
of gathering data. The study was created with Clark and Estes (2008) framework.
Assessment of Performance Influences
Chapter 2 provided an overview of the assumed influencers for student services and
specifically, LGBT resource centers. Influencers were categorized into three subcategories,
aligning with the Clark and Estes (2008) framework. In the area of knowledge, student services
must be familiar with how to facilitate communication (Bulu & Yildirim, 2008; Yamamoto et al.,
2012) and direct students to resources (Baker, 2006; CAS, 2010; Fine, 2012; Mobley & Johnson,
2015), and use data to reflect on previous performance (Sanlo, 2000; Westbrook, 2009). In the
area of motivation, staff must recognize the importance of their work and believe their
contributions make an impact (Eccles, 2006; Pajares, 2006; Pintrich, 2003; Stukalina, 2014).
Finally, in the area of organization, staff must develop a student-centered culture (Ivory, 2005;
Martin, Galentino & Townsend, 2014; Poynter & Tubbs, 2008; Roper, 2005; Vasserfeir, 2012),
and effectively direct the resources needed to meet students’ needed.
In order to assess the influences of the areas of knowledge, motivation and organization,
specific assessment approaches were been selected. The two approaches that were used in this
dissertation were interviews and observations. Interviews were structured one-time sessions.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

42
Observations occurred in three locations: the UCR LGBT Resource Center Office lobby,
meeting room during regular business hours, and as the Asterisk Conference. Both of these
qualitative approaches were used to examine staff in the areas of knowledge, motivation and
organization. The examination of assumed knowledge assets relied heavily upon interview data.
Observations are included to assess the application of procedural knowledge, specifically related
to staff referring students to resources. Motivation assessment relied equally on interview data
and observations data. Organization assessment consisted of nearly equal amounts of interviews
and observations data.
Knowledge Assessment
There were eight knowledge influences that are further categorized into areas of
declarative, procedure, and metacognitive. Based on the literature review, there was substantial
documentation that knowledge is a critical area in the field of student service. As such each
subcategory, declarative, procedural, and metacognitive, has been explored. Table 4 outlines
these specific categories, influencers and the questions that were used to assess these areas.
Many questions were relevant to more than one influencer. For example, questions 1, 2, 3 and 6
assessed both declarative knowledge and also focused on staff’s knowledge of goals, missions
and purpose. Knowledge of university resources for student referrals was assessed by questions 4
and 6, as well as in office observations. Procedural knowledge focused on retention strategies
and application. Procedural knowledge was assessed by questions 4, 5 and 6. Metacognitive
knowledge was assessed by questions 4, 5, 6 and 12, as well as office observations.
Metacognitive assessments focused on how staff analyze the Centers performance and make
decisions based on their analysis.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

43
Motivation Assessment
Table 4 displays two central themes developed from the literature review on student
services and motivation. The first, self-efficacy, will focused on the staff’s confidence in their
assigned abilities to complete their tasks. Self-efficacy was assessed in question 7 and through
office observations. The second, utility value, focused on staff work values. Utility value has
been assessed through interview question 7, 9, 12 and event observation.
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
The final knowledge category, organization, has two themes derived from the literature
review. The first area, leadership, sought to reveal the leadership influence on culture. It has
been assessed by interview questions 10, 11, and event and office observations. The second,
autonomy, focused on staff influence on developing independence for students. This was
assessed by interview questions 10, 11, 13 and office and event observations.
Table 4
Assessment of Assumed Influences

Assumed Influence How it will be assessed?
Possible Knowledge Influences
Know purpose of LGBT Resource Centers Interview Question 1, Interview Question
2
Interview Question 3, Interview Question 6
Know the University’ goals for student Interview Question 2, Interview Question3
success
Know campus and local resources for Interview Question 4, Interview Question 6,
referrals
Know retention strategies and how to contribute Interview question 5, Interview Question 6
retention Observation (Office)
Know industry best practices: purpose of Interview Question 4, Interview Question 5,
center
Analyze and reflect on data collected and Interview Question 7, Interview Question
adjust activities accordingly 12, Observation (Office) Interview
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

44
Question 6
Make budgetary allocations based on Interview Question 7, Interview Question 12
analysis of performance
Articulate how their role supports retention Interview Question 4, Interview Question 5,
Interview Question 6
Possible Motivation Influences
Individual staff believe they have the ability Interview Question 7, Observation (Office)
to successfully expand Resource Center’s
programs
Staff is confident in the team’s ability to Interview Question 7, Observation (Office)
successfully expand the Resource Center’s
programs
Staff believes the continued expansion of the Interview Question 7, Observation (Office)
breadth of programs will make the LGBT
Resource Center more attractive to potential
Members
Staff members believe it is important for Interview Question 7, Interview Question 9,
them to provide a wide variety of Interview Question 12, Observation (Event)
programming
Possible Organizational Influences
Staff management must develop culture of Interview Question 10, Observation (Event
inclusion and Office)
Diversity groups create culture of inclusion Interview Question 10, Interview Question
11, Observation (Event and Office)
University resources must be available to Interview Question 11, Interview Question
support students and their individual needs 13

Participating Stakeholders and Sample Section
The primary stakeholder, the LGBT Resource Center, was staffed by a small number of
staff; less than ten individuals usually staff the LGBT Resource Center. Three individuals were
identified as full-time staff. The remaining staff consisted of four part-time students. In order to
accurately represent the organization, the staff has been defined as paid individuals working full-
time or part time at the LGBT Resource Center. The small sample was selected to be a
purposeful representation of the staff at the University of California Riverside Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Resource Center.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

45
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The proposed study’s interview sampling strived to not generalize the thoughts or
motivations of any one person (Merriam, 1995). Considering the size of the staff at the
University of California Riverside LGBT Resource Center, interviewing a fraction of the staff
would not provide an appropriate representation of the knowledge, motivation and organization
assets or barriers of the individuals and the organization. For this reason, the entire staff of the
University of California Riverside LGBT Resource Center, including part time and/or student
staff, was be invited to participate in the observations and interviews. Using a “population”
approach confirmed the rigor and validity of the sample (Merriam, 1995).
Criterion 1. University of California Riverside LGBT Resource Center full time or part
time staff. To accurately capture the organization’s perspective, staff must have been employed
at the center for at least six months. Staff must have worked at least one shift per week at the
LGBT Resource Center.
Recruitment
Considering the size of the staff at the University of California Riverside LGBT Resource
Center, interviewing a fraction of the staff would not have provided an adequate representation
of the knowledge, motivation and organization assets of the individuals working at the
organization. It is for this reason, interviewing the majority of the staff was desired. This study
aims to include 75%-100% of staff or individuals that worked at the UCR LGBT Resource
Center. This interview sample was both small and purposeful. With the majority of staff
participating in this study, it confirmed the rigor and validity of the survey (Merriam, 1995).
To further reduce the risk of participants being influenced or coerced into participation,
all staff was contacted via email for recruitment. All potential participants were emailed in the
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

46
same manner and verbiage (see Appendix C for the text of the email invitation). All participants
were provided the same information regarding the study and invited to ask questions regarding
the student and participation. Participants were informed that while the organization approved
the use of its name for this study, specific participant names will not be disclosed. Pseudonyms
were selected to protect individual’s identity. Additionally, transcripts were coded to ensure
utmost confidentiality.
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. University of California Riverside LGBT Resource Center office
observations focused on staff behavior and interactions with students. For the purpose of this
study, staff are defined as University of California Riverside LGBT Resource Center full-time or
part-time staff. To accurately capture the organizations perspective, staff must have been
employed at the center for at least six months. Staff must work at least one shift per week at the
organization. Staff in office observations occurred at the UC Riverside Center office lobby as
well as the meeting room. Observations focused on staff interactions with students and amongst
themselves.
Criterion 2. The event observation occurred at the Asterisk Transgender Conference.
Observation focused on staff engagement with students and staff participation.
Data Collection
The two methods of data collection were selected with consideration of methods that
provided the most accurate and holistic data that aligned with the research questions stated above
and provided a credible and ethical collection and analysis of data. The interviews offered
insight and explained any assets or gaps in the areas of knowledge, motivation and organization
of the staff at the University of Riverside, LGBT Resource Center. To triangulate the results, the
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

47
researcher elected to conduct observations at the LGBT Resource Center to confirm the results of
the interviews and reveal any assets or barriers that were not explicitly stated during the
interview portion. Observational field notes focused on non-verbal communication and
interactions during event programming and office hours.
Interviews
The interview method was selected in order to explore the staff thoughts and opinions on
their performance goals and best addresses the aforementioned research questions. This method
was determined to be the best approach to build rapport with staff in person, develop trust and
gather in-depth responses from participants (Creswell, 2006). All staff that fit the criteria and
elected to participate were scheduled for individual, structured interviews. Interviews were
scheduled for times that were beneficial and convenient to all participants. Each participant was
asked to engage in one formal structured interview lasting approximately one to two hours.
Interviews were conducted on campus in the Center meeting room or staff office at the LGBT
Resource Center. All interviews were conducted in English.
Structured interviews were selected in order to guide the interview (Creswell, 2006) and
provide questions developed to gather data, which addressed the assumed causes. This approach
was also selected in order to ensure consistency of questions asked to participants (Creswell,
2006). Individuals were asked the same number of open-ended, non-leading questions with
identical verbiage (Krueger & Casey, 2009). The questions pertained to staff experiences, the
organization and knowledge. The interview protocol may be found in Appendix A.
Observation
Event and office observations have occurred for this study. Observations occurred in two
different settings. The first was at the LGBT Resource Center during regular office hours. On
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

48
three different occasions, the researcher observed staff. The times of observations varied, but
included one morning, one mid-day and one evening visit. The second occurred at the annual
Asterisk Transgender Conference. The researcher was present, non-participating and a neutral
party. For both types of observations, the focus of the observations will be the staff interactions
amongst each other and LGBT Resource Center participants, which aligned with research
questions (Creswell, 2006). Specifically, the observation focused on aligning interview
responses with actions of staff at the Center in order to triangulate data. All observation data was
gathered through standardized field notes. The field note format can be located in Appendix B.
General scenarios may be described but, student information and identities was not recorded.
Data Analysis

After all interviews and observations, the researcher generated preliminary conclusions
and notes by creating an analytic memo. Specific attention has been given to data in relation to
the research question. The next step in this study is transcription of all data. The researcher
transcribed all data. Word for word transcription of all recorded interviews was created and
coded. Field notes will also be typed. Field notes and interview transcriptions were then coded.
All staff were assigned pseudonyms to protect their identity. Coded field notes and
transcriptions were compared to the review of literature to validate assumed assets and barriers.
Credibility and Trustworthiness.

This research study sought to adhere to the highest standards of credibility and
trustworthiness. As such, the study’s proposed design, data collection methods, and data
analysis methods were developed with credibility and trustworthiness in mind. Several efforts
were made to address the internal validity of the study. The efforts ensured assumptions and
biases were reduced or eliminated from the study. Careful attention was placed on eliminating
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

49
any personal opinion or bias while collecting data, analyzing data and deriving conclusions from
data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). Reactivity was also addressed by careful review of question
formats (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009) as well as peer evaluation of the usefulness of the questions.
Research data was triangulated in an effort to further reduce researcher bias (Merriam & Tisdell,
2009; Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014) and confirm validity of the results.
Participation was completely voluntary. Interview data collection was administered
professionally (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). Interview data has been recorded and transcribed in
order to maintain utmost accuracy of participants’ responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). All
interviews were structured and questions will be consistent in order to ensure consistency in data
gathered and adhere to the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). Questions were
reviewed for clarity and relevance (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). Interview questions focused on
experiences, opinions, values and knowledge (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009).
For the observation portion of this qualitative study, the researcher became a source of
data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). Observation field notes were descriptive and not
contain any bias (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). Field notes adhered to the
objective, and focus on the setting, participants, interactions, and non-verbal communication
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2009; Miles et al., 2014). All conclusions at the end of the study have been
gathered from observations and interview material (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009; Miles et al., 2014).
The aim was to remain neutral and provide unbiased conclusions as a result of the data that will
be gathered.
Role of Investigator
Prior to this study, the researcher had no preexisting relationship with the organization, of
focus, the UC Riverside LGBT Resource Center or any of its staff. The researcher’s role in this
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

50
proposed study was solely professional and sought to clarify assets and barriers of the staff for
professional purposes. There was no additional interest or influence. Through observation and
interview, the researcher served as a data collection source for this proposed study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2009). For this study, the researcher strived to develop a professional relationship with
participants, however in order to gather candid responses and day to day activities, a level of
rapport was cultivated in order to develop trust. Rapport allowed researcher to focus on non-
verbal communication cues and gather candid responses. The researcher remained professional
in order to minimize bias throughout data collection and analysis.
Ethics
Ethical practice in research studies requires researchers to ensure no harm to participants
(Rubin & Rubin, 2012). In compliance with research ethical standards, all efforts were made to
provide a respectful environment and all appropriate disclosures to this study’s participants
before commencement of the proposed study.
In order to reduce risk of participants being coerced into participation, all staff were
contacted via email for recruitment. Participants were informed that while the organization has
approved the use of its name for this study, specific participant names would not be disclosed,
and transcripts will be coded to ensure utmost confidentiality. Participants were not offered any
incentives or rewards during recruitment.
Participants were informed of the purpose of the study and potential benefits of the
proposed study through the information sheet. All participants received an informed consent
form and information sheet. Please see Appendix D formation sheet. Both of the
aforementioned document disclosed that participation in the student is voluntary and participants
may withdrawal at any point without penalty. All foreseeable risks were disclosed to
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

51
participants. Due to the sensitive nature of gender identity and sexual orientation, individuals
were informed that all efforts would be made to make any and all responses confidential, but
without promise of complete confidentiality (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The researcher obtained
permission to audio record the interviews in efforts to maintain utmost accuracy of responses.
Participants were informed that an incentive will be provided in the form of a coffee or music
gift card. At the conclusion of the study, a thank you card will be mailed and with a small
donation to the UCR LGBT Resource Center fund/Amazon Wish List. Along with the above
information, participants were also provided with a copy of the Experimental Subject’s Bill of
Rights (USC IRB) as shown in Appendix E. Participants were provided contact information of
the researcher and dissertation chair. Participants were required to sign the consent form should
they wish to proceed with the interview and observations.
In addition to the above information and disclosures, in order to ensure all necessary
safety protocol had followed, the details of this study have been submitted to and approved by
the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. All IRB
regulations and guidelines were followed in order to ensure the protection and welfare of
participants in this student.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
All research studies, including this research study, have limitations. The limitations for
this study include sample size. While the researcher sought to obtain the majority of staff
participation, not all staff were willing to participate. Further, while the sample may be
representative of the organization, participants were not representative of all LGBT resource
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

52
centers. Additional limitations included lack of prior research, specifically research pertaining to
LGBT resource centers and LGBT specific student services.
Delimitations
This proposed research study also had delimitations. The study focused on one
stakeholder in the organization. There was no representation of the other stakeholders including
students, or other student service departments, the student body and the university
administration.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

53
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

The following chapter explains the findings that resulted from the observations and
interviews outlined in Chapter 3, Methodology. Specifically, this chapter explains which assets
and barriers were validated. Assumed assets and barriers to the exemplary student services
identified in the literature were broken down into the three categories, knowledge, motivation
and organization. Qualitative data was collected in order to validate the presence of the assumed
causes in the University of California Riverside LGBT Resource Center. Individual guided
interviews with three full-time and two part-time student staff were conducted and observation
followed. Please see Table 5 below for interview questions. Causes were considered validated
when confirmed by both interview and observation findings.
Office observations occurred in the LGBT Resource Center in Costo Hall. Two senior,
full-time staff members had private offices. The third full-time staff member and part-time staff
members shared the front desk just to the left of the Center doors. The meeting room sat
adjacent to the front desk. The meeting room consisted of one large conference table with
multiple seats. Additionally, the meeting room was equipped with a large flat screen TV, sink,
microwave and refrigerator. Additional rooms included a copy and supply room, computer lab,
and the new quiet room with sound proof wall coverings. The lobby had several flexible
sectionals, which could be rearranged to accommodate student needs. A bulletin board and table
were opposite the seating and filled with flyers, pamphlets and condoms. Additional
observations occurred at the Asterisk Conference in the HUB building on campus. The Asterisk
Conference registration started in a large lobby in the HUB building. Once events had
commenced, staff relocated to the adjacent auditorium.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

54
All participants have been given pseudonyms and gender neutral pronouns to remain
confidential. Interview participants included three full-time staff members. Robin, the most
senior staff member, Jesse and Jamie. Two of the four part-time staff agreed to be interviewed.
Cameron and Dylan had both been involved with the LGBT Center for several years.
Table 5
Interview Questions

Interview Question
Probing Questions
Could you please tell me a bit about your role here at the LGBT Resource Center?
Why did you want to work at the LGBT Resource Center?
How long have you been working here?
Can you describe a typical day here at the LGBT Resource Center?
How would you explain the goal of the LGBT Resource Center?
How would you describe the day-to-day functions of the LGBT Resource Center?
How are students directed to resources?
Can you walk me through the training process as a new employee at the LGBT Resource Center?
What other types of training do you participate in?
What resources, electronic or physical, that you rely on daily?
I was given the set of CAS standard the Center follows. What do you know about CAS
regulations and standards?
Most universities have international students; can you tell me about the international population
at UCR?
Can you share any cross cultural training for Center staff?
Retention is a common theme in university student services. How does the LGBT Resource
Center fit into the goal of retention?
What is the LGBT Resource Center role in the university community?
Tell me about the university resources that you refer students to?
Have students approached you with issues that you weren’t able to counsel?
Can you share some of the events the Center provides?
How is the programming developed?
Who are the individuals in charge of decision-making?
To what extent are you allowed input?
Describe the LGBT Resource Center staff’s expectations of your work?
In what ways does the fellow staff create high expectations for you?
How important do you believe your work at the LGBT Resource Center is?
Could you describe at what point you realized the importance of your work here?
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

55
I’d like to ask you some questions about community next. Can you tell me a little about the
Riverside community?
Can you tell me about the UCR community? How supportive are they of the LGBT
community?
Can you describe what it’s like working or being a part of the LGBT university student
community?
How does bringing the LGBT student population together ensure success for all students?
Can you share any outreach that goes beyond the university and to the city of Riverside?
Can you tell me about the role of the Center’s budget in day to day decisions?
Can you tell me if the Center has a budget equal to ethnic centers on campus?
Can you tell me how the UCR determines the Center budget?
How does staff determine whether the LGBT Resource Center is serving as a safe zone for all
LGBT students on campus?
Can you tell if how the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando impacted the Center?
In what ways, if ever, does the organization take time to reflect on current programming and
events?
How do you know you have effectively assisted a student?
What does success look like?
In an ideal world, what would the LGBT Center services look like?

Findings for Knowledge Causes

Knowing the Purpose of the LGBT Resource Center: Validated
Findings from interviews. The interview results find that one factor contributing to the
success of the University of California Riverside’s LGBT Resource Center success was the
staff’s knowledge of the purpose of the Center. When asked questions regarding the Center’s
role and purpose, all participants were able to articulate a response with ease. Cameron, a part-
time student assistant, described the role of the LGBT Resource Center as being a space for
everyone, both straight and gay. Cameron continued describing the goal as making students
aware of the available support, maintaining in-office material and providing referrals to
resources both on and off campus. One of the less talkative interview respondents was Dylan.
Dylan had been a part-time student assistant for several years. Dylan was also able to provide a
response and articulate the purpose of the LGBT Resource Center succinctly as, “Providing a
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

56
safe and affirming space for queer students on campus. And then also, connecting them with
resources and having events.”
When the question was directed to Robin, the most seasoned full-time staff member, they
first replied by reciting the Center’s mission statement verbatim. Robin elaborated on the true
purpose of the LGBT Resource Center. Robin stated the first goal was to ensure the student was
alive and the second to ensure they are progressing not only with academic goals but developing
as a human being. Another full-time staff member, Jesse, described the purpose of the LGBT
Resource Center as supporting education and advocacy making sure students graduate. Jesse
echoed Robin’s response of the purpose revolving around keeping students alive and well. In
conclusion, while all participants responded differently, each could articulate the purpose of the
LGBT Resource Center.
Findings from observations. According to Robin, the purpose of the Center was taken
into consideration when designing the LGBT Resource Center space. Observations at the LGBT
Resource Center started with a brief tour of the facilities. The space was equipped with a TV,
refrigerator, microwave, library (both books and DVDs), a computer lab with printers, and ample
space for lounging and studying. Billboards highlighted upcoming events from the LGBT
Center and other organizations on campus. A meeting room served as a private space for
students to discuss private matters when meetings are not being held. Student needs appeared to
be at the forefront of the design and organization of the LGBT Resource Center.
During a staff meeting observation, students remained at the forefront of conversation.
Staff used the time to build rapport with part-time staff and discuss upcoming events. Part-time
staffs were advised to look out for signs of suicide as there was an upcoming holiday. Student
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

57
safety was addressed as a broken white board repair was requested. The purpose of the LGBT
Resource Center was prevalent in the day to day occurrences at the Center.
Know the Center’s Role in University’s Goals for Student Success: Not Validated
Findings from interviews. Unlike knowing the purpose of the UCR LGBT Resource
Center, participants were not as familiar with the Center’s role in the University’s goals for
student success. Each participant articulated the role of the Center and the Center’s role within
the university differently. One full-time staff member, Jesse, described the goal as education and
advocacy and continued to describe the role of the center as facilitating, “cultural competency
allowing people to understand that we do exist.” Another full-time staff, Jamie, described the
role in the university to be support and education. Jamie shared the importance of sustaining
student lives due to students’ LGBT-unique mental health issues. Cameron, a student, shared the
importance of the Center creating a sense of community on campus, as a part of the role of the
university. When asked to describe the university’s goal for student success within the
university, responses varied. Each staff member was able to articulate the role and goal of the
Center, but not necessarily convey consistency when describing the Center’s role in relation to
the University and student success.
Know Campus and Local Resources for Referrals: Validated
Findings from interviews. When asked about campus and local resources, all
participants shared specific student resources utilized by the LGBT Resource Center. When
asked specifically about on campus resources, Cameron, shared a few of the resources staff
frequently refer students to including the health center, the Counseling and Psychological
Services, also known on campus as CAPS, case managers, and the university pantry. Jamie
offered the above and added the CARE office (Title IX sexual assault and harassment), the
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

58
Women’s Resource Center and Asian Pacific Student group. Jessie shared a similar response,
but also included the libraries, recreation centers, career center. Robin responded with all of the
above in addition to the Financial Aid department.
In regards to off campus resources, the participants agreed that the surrounding city,
Riverside, was not as LGBT friendly as campus. Jamie cited Planned Parenthood as a frequent
referral and all respondents cited TruEvolution, a relatively new LGBT community center, as a
frequent referral. Part-time staff were not as well versed on off campus resources and shared that
they relied heavily on full-time staff for assistance with off campus resources. All respondents
were able to cite both on-campus and off-campus resources for student referrals.
Findings from observations. During one observation session, a student arrived seeking
assistance. Full-time staff member Robin proceeded to triage the situation. Robin asked the
student various questions to determine the state of the student, what factors were contributing to
the issue, what may have been complicating the issue and ultimately the type of assistance the
student would require. Robin offered advice on how student communication strategies to
empower the student to reach out to the instructor and ensure their academics were not affected.
Additionally, Robin suggested the student overcome one obstacle by using a ride sharing app,
which eliminated the transportation obstacle. Lastly, Robin suggested the student take care of
their physical needs by eating at a nearby restaurant. Robin was aware of the available
resources. Robin was able to offer suggestions by assessing the student’s needs and making
appropriate recommendations.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

59
Know Effective Retention Strategies and How the Center Contributes to Efforts: Not
Validated
Findings from interviews. Not all staff were familiar with the term, “retention” and
several requested the definition of the term. The senior full-time staff was well versed in the
term’s meaning, purpose and how the Center participated in retention efforts. Jessie shared that
the Center’s role in the students’ life is to assist in navigating the university as well as assisting
in developing identity. Jessie continued to describe that the Center serves as an information
resource, sometimes offering referrals to other university departments and other times educating
students on issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. Jamie shared an anecdote
involving a day to day interaction:
“they come to me and they’re like, ‘I think I am going to drop out of school’ and then
we’ll have a conversation on either why that is or is not a good idea. And most of the
time it’s just that moment. They’re having a hard class and it doesn’t seem worth it. And
we kind of talk that all out, and that’s all they really needed.”
Robin shared a different perspective, but similar outcome. Robin emphasized student
progression toward graduation and developing resilience.
Responses from the student workers were different in that they were not familiar with the
word retention, but once explained, had a clear understanding of how the Center might contribute
to such an effort. In addition to understanding the importance of being a resource on campus,
one student explained ally trainings as a critical part of student retention, specifically with
Resident Advisor staff. Another student understood the Center’s role in retention as being a
community for students and an outlet for problem solving as well as printing assignments. They
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

60
continued to explain that students often come in to print assignments and stay to socialize with
friends or like-minded people.
Know Industry Best Practices: Purpose of Retention: Not Validated
Findings from interviews. It was assumed that all staff would be proficient in industry
best practices. However, part-time staff were unable to define or explain CAS standards. The
full-time staff were able to describe what CAS standards were but not able to articulate its
application. Jesse, responded, “I know that CAS is really popular, but we don’t follow them here
at UCR in the same capacity. We have our own way of doing things in the system that works.”
Another staff member responded, “I know of them…it’s a familiar term, but I cannot give you
definitions or, like, bullet points.” Jesse continued, “I’m sure we use them. I’m sure it’s in our
work. I’m sure if you showed them to me and explain it.” One senior staff member, Robin, was
quite familiar with the CAS standards and served as an expert evaluator at another university’s
implementation of CAS. However, they were not committed to using only these best practices at
the Center or University.
Findings from observations. During observations, staff showed a thorough
understanding of retention’s purpose and strategies. Staff was readily available to students and
frequently engaged in conversation with students, further solidifying a connection between the
university and student. While the importance and topic of conversation varied greatly, from
serious GPA related conversations to Grammy performances, staff frequently engaged
conversation with students. While staff did not know the formal definitions of best practices,
they displayed some of the principles.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

61
Staff Members Know How to Create Safe Space: Not Validated
Findings from interviews. An assumed influence of the LGBT Resource Center’s
continued success was the staffs’ ability to create and maintain a safe space for all students. The
interview responses received contradicted this assumed influence. Robin clarified, “We try to
create courageous spaces…We want all to feel comfortable here, but there is a little bit
of…we’re going to challenge you if you say racist stuff or sexist stuff or transphobic or biphobic
of whatever.” Jesse maintained a similar tone clarifying that the LGBT Resource Center is not a
safe space for all students. Jesse clarified that the safety is determined by who is in the Center at
any given moment, the language they are utilizing and whether those individuals are respectful.
Jamie shared how the safe spaces are enforced by explaining the community agreements utilized
to guide student’s behavior. Community agreements are posted throughout the Center and
indicate appropriate behavior. Full-time staff provided variety of responses none of which
validated the assumed influences.
Dylan, a part-time staff member and student, shared a response similar to Jesse’s and
asserted the lack of diversity in Resource Center participants as a hindrance to creating a safe
space. “I know I, as a person of color…we’ve been uncomfortable in the space. My first week
the most white people that I had seen on campus in one space was when I was in the Center, and
I was very put off by that. It is a safe space, but that is not necessarily a comfortable place”.
Dylan’s response offered an insightful look into the perspective of a student of color utilizing the
LGBT Resource Center.
Findings from observations. During observations, staff created what they describe as a
courageous safe space. When introducing themselves to someone new or when unsure, staff
inquired about preferred gender pronouns. In the Center, staff allowed students to use a meeting
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

62
room and close the door if subject matter may be triggering to other students. Staff made
themselves available for one on one private talks, if the subject matter required or the student
requested. While observing the Asterisk Conference, staff provided access to gender neutral
restrooms to allow all students and participants an opportunity to use the restrooms that matched
their gender identity. Robin shared they frequently encouraged everyone to be aware of their
privilege and work to eliminate inequality amongst students and staff. While the staff did not
create a typical safe space, they did seek to develop a courageous safe space.
Know How to Counsel and Support LGBT Students, Staff and Faculty: Not Validated
Findings from interviews. When staff responded to the question of whether they
encountered students they were unable to counsel or help, responses varied greatly. However, in
other questions, regarding applying the skills of support and counseling, the staff seemed
confident they knew how to assist students or whom to contact to get assistance. Cameron
expressed difficulty with assisting students on the phone. Cameron mentioned not being as well
versed in this area as full time staff member, Jamie. However, Cameron continued to explain in
detail how they would go about assessing the student’s needs based on the particular situation
and situation’s urgency. Cameron was also able to describe outside resources they may
recommend for students wishing to find a community with one of the ethnic centers. Dylan,
another part-time staff member, was less descriptive of the attempts at supporting and assisting.
Dylan explained they would seek assistance from a more senior staff member in difficult
situations.
When asked about counseling and supporting students, full-time staff were quick to
clarify they were not counselors. As they continued to elaborate on the question, staff described
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

63
their process in assessing the student’s situation, needs and finding suitable assistance. Robin
provided the most in depth reply which described how they steered difficult conversations:
Often these are conversation where all I can do is listen and give them things to think
about. I have these conversations about families being unaccepting and all I can do is
talk. I can give them something to think about like, you know, think how long it took for
you to come out to yourself. Or how long are you giving your parents to adjust to the idea
or sometimes, the first reaction isn’t the last reaction from parents and family.

All staff agreed that they collaborate with one another when they encounter a student who
required special assistance.
Findings from observations. Robin described the steps they take when assisting students
above and did exactly that when encountering a student needing assistance. During the
interview, Robin made it clear they were not a counselor, but did converse with troubled students
or students in crisis regularly. Robin’s interactions with the student were conversational, but
purposeful. Robin sought to understand and assess the student by asking questions. Robin’s
questions revealed the underlying issue and allowed the staff member to provide appropriate
solutions to the student’s issues. While staff communicated they were not counselors, they are
aware of how to approach students in crises, how to determine the underlying issue and how to
provide appropriate solutions.
Know When and How to Refer Students to Appropriate Resources: Validated
Findings from interviews. Staff were very knowledgeable about how, when and whom
to refer students to as well as when to seek assistance from another staff member. When asked
about which resources they commonly refer students to, all staff members were able to articulate
the most common on campus and off campus resources. Staff articulated how they go about
assessing the student and individual scenario. Staff explained that the response and resource
recommended are dictated by the individual student, urgency of situation and type of assistance
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

64
required. Jamie explained that issues range from how the new computer system works to
students in need of serious financial assistance. In the former scenario, Jamie sat down with the
student and helped to troubleshoot their navigation issues. In the latter scenario, Jamie
recommended the Financial Aid office. Only temporary assistance is offered at the LGBT
Center and funds are very limited. Thus, without resolving the larger financial issue, the student
would continue to encounter the issue. Full-time and part-time staff all knew how to properly
assess and assist students. In the case of the part-time staff, they knew when to seek assistance
from more experienced staff.
Know How to Foster Communication and Socialization: Validated
Findings from interviews. Part-time staff members knew how to facilitate
conversations with peers. Dylan and Cameron mentioned making small talk to gauge the status
of visitors in the center. Full-time staff members navigated the conversations more strategically,
using the time to gauge specific student needs, whether in the moment or for future
programming. Jamie described the importance in surveying students to see if they are interested
in participation. As they described, programming is not important if students do not participate.
Both Robin and Jesse described Jessie excelling in socialization with certain demographics of the
student population. Both Robin and Jesse described the importance of intersectionality amongst
the staff. Robin described an incident where a student confronted her for not being a person of
color. The student believed that Robin was unable to understand the student’s perspective due to
differing ethnic backgrounds. At some point in the interviews, all staff members described the
importance of intersectionality and having representation of all demographics among the staff.
Findings from observations. One area the staff excelled in demonstrating was
facilitating communication and socializing with students. Throughout the observations, staff
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

65
engaged students in conversation. While in the lobby, Jamie frequently interjected in
conversations occurring in the lobby. Jesse was approached by students to discuss the Grammy
awards show that had aired days earlier. Keeping up the conversation, Jesse then inquired about
their opinions on the show. In another instance, Jesse sought out a student to inquire whether
they would be interested in a dating app safety event. During the Asterisk conference, Jesse and
Jaime immersed themselves in the event taking seats in the auditorium. They both engaged with
the speakers as well as participants.
Know How to Deal with Sensitive LGBT Matters With Confidentiality and Respect:
Validated
Findings from interviews. All staff members expressed great respect for sexual
orientations and gender identities expressed by the student body. Each respected students’ and
fellow staff’s gender pronouns. In fact, recently, Robin and Jamie noticed an increase in the
number of students identifying as Asexual. Staff addressed this change in demographics with a
required informational training for staff and students on Asexuality. As far as confidentiality,
staff did not mention maintaining any required confidentiality for student staff interactions.
Analyze and Reflect on Data Collected and Adjust Activities Accordingly: Not Validated
Findings from interviews. Part-time staff were not knowledgeable about the collection
and reflection on aforementioned data. Robin and Jamie noted the difficulty of truly capturing
accurate data due to the sensitive nature of students’ gender identities and sexual orientation.
Robin explained that many students come to terms with their orientation or identity during their
college experience. Robin noted that the university graduates more LGBT students than they
admit. Cameron, a part-time staff member, shared that they assist with typing program survey
results, but was unaware of the process after her portion is complete. Jamie was able to share
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

66
some of the analysis details revealing that most reflection occurs during the summer, when the
LGBT Resource Center foot traffic dies down a bit. As a senior staff member, Robin was
responsible for much of the reflection, review of data and preparation of reports. Aside from
Robin, the vast majority of staff was not familiar with the process.
Findings from observations. Staff displayed the ability to analyze and reflect on data
and adjust accordingly. During observations, Robin reviewed the Asterisk participant numbers
and, based on demands and requests, continued registration up until the actual event. At the start
of the event, Robin observed when the lobby of the event center was full and began to give
direction to other staff and volunteers. Robin coordinated ASL interpreters, placing them in
areas where they would be needed. Robin was able to analyze data as well as observe the crowd
and adjust based on their analysis of the situation. Aside from the aforementioned examples,
minimal data analysis occurred at the time of interview. The LGBT demographic question on the
admissions application was one year old at the time. Sufficient data has not been gathered.

Make Budgetary Allocations Based on Analysis of Performance: Not Validated
Findings from interviews. All staff members were aware of who made the budgetary
allocations but most were unaware of the details of the process. The only staff member that was
familiar with the details of the budgetary allocations and how performance was analyzed was a
senior staff member. They were happy to assist and explain their strategy at approaching the
analysis and budget.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes

The interview questions and observations surrounding the Knowledge influencers
revealed several themes. Not all assumed influencers were validated by the findings. The
University’s goals and best practices of LGBT student services were not identified by all staff
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

67
and thus not considered a driving factor in the continued success of the UCR LGBT Resource
Center. Analyzing data and decision-making were not expressed or demonstrated by all LGBT
Resource Center staff. Only the two most senior staff was able to explain the Center’s
metacognitive processes. Factors validated by the findings include knowing the purpose of the
LGBT Resource Center, knowing campus and local resources for referrals, knowing retention
strategies, and being able to articulate how staff’s role plays a part in retention. The focus on for
recommendations will be based on the areas the staff members have not validated: becoming
familiar with University goals and best practices. Additionally, recommendations will be made
in areas that all staff did not validate, such as analyzing data and decision making.

Findings for Motivation Causes
Individual Staff Believe in Their Ability to Successfully Expand the Center’s Programs:
Validated
Findings from interviews. When asked about their ability to act as a change agent, all
staff had differing opinions on their role in change and programming development. The
assortment of answers suggests that the staff, particularly part-time staff, are either not
understanding their role or have not been allowed opportunities for meaningful input. One part-
time staff member, Dylan, explained the director of the Center had everything organized.
Cameron, another part-time staff member shared some insight into their understanding of the
role, “Programming? That’s not so much of my field. As a student assistant, I feel like we are
constantly, like, just told, ‘Hey, this is happening”. Cameron went on to share that occasionally
part-time staff feedback is solicited but mostly in meetings.
Full-time staff members had differing understandings of their role and ability to expand
programming as well. Jamie explained program development sometimes comes from an
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

68
individual’s suggestion and other times from ongoing conversation. Jamie’s approach to
programming development relies heavily on student buy in. Jamie reaches out for student input
regularly for suggestions on speakers and events. Jessie explained their approach as also being
student centered and catering to the needs of the student and cited two conferences, Blaq Out and
Queer Trans People of Color, that came to fruition as the result of student needs. Jessie gathered
student input through conversations with students and appraising their needs. Lastly, Robin
shared her role and ability to change programming. Robin explained that ideas came from
various forums, including annual events and events proposed by other centers. Robin explained
that in regards to programming, her voice is often loudest.
Findings from observations. During observations, part-time staff offered minimal
suggestions. The majority of their input pertained to the day to day operations of the LGBT
Resource Center and not programming decisions. Staff offered suggestions on keeping the area
clean and what potential safety hazard in the Center were. They did not offer input on
programming.
The full-time staff had continuous conversations about various programs and made
decisions by consulting one another. From smaller decisions, such as who would go to the store
to make purchases to larger decisions such as staffing or pricing supplies for events, there was
constant dialogue between full-time staff members.
Staff is Confident in the Team’s Ability to Successfully Expand the Center’s Programs: Not
Validated

Findings from interviews. Most staff believed that the LGBT Resource Center was able
to expand the Center’s programming. As discussed above, all staff members expressed differing
views on their own role and power in the Center’s programming. Staff member, Robin,
explained that they must be consulted and approve all programming decisions and dislikes others
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

69
to agree to changes without consulting her. Robin manages the Center budget, so her input and
approval was critical to programming. Jessie and Jamie agreed about of the importance of
Robin’s approval. Jessie, Jamie and Robin each expressed ability to express input and provide
suggestions for programming. The full-time staff expressed the ability to successfully expand
the Center’s programming as a team.
Related to believing in their own ability as part-time staff, Cameron and Dylan expressed
being able to provide input only when asked. However, Dylan went on to explain an instance
when an idea for programming occurred from a conversation between them and Jessie. Dylan
then acknowledged that if her opinion to bring a speaker or event to campus was voiced to full-
time staff, they would consider it. Staff provided inconsistent responses regarding their own
ability to effect programming.
Staff Members Believe in Importance of the Center Providing a Variety of Programming:
Validated
Findings from interviews. All staff members expressed the importance of addressing
the diversity of student needs in relation to programming. All staff members recognized the
importance of having programming that suited their students’ demographics. Part-time staff’s
feedback was particularly interesting as they expressed concerns, from their perspective as
students, as to the representation of students of color in the Center. Dylan expressed concerns
about the efforts to make a space for queer students of color on campus. They expressed a desire
for speakers and workshops to align with the student’s needs. Dylan and Cameron both
expressed having to refer students of color to various ethnic centers to find individuals like
themselves represented on campus. Many of the programs produced and developed by the
Center focus on identities, such as sexual orientation and gender identity, but also the
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

70
intersectionality with students’ other identities, such as race. For example, Presente is the queer
Latinx conference produced by the LGBT Center. And Blaq Out was developed for queer black
students. With a campus a diverse university, the Center staff believes in the importance in
producing a wide variety of programming.
Findings from observations. The LGBT Center staff did develop programming based
on their diverse student population. The Asterisk conference was one example during the
observations that featured programming geared towards different ethnicities, gender identities
and languages. The Asterisk conference included professional ASL interpreters for the key note
speaker and various activities. The planning involved for presenting a conference of that
magnitude required staff to consider the needs of different types of people. Consideration of
others’ needs was reflected in the conference topics, selection of the key note speaker, and
available interpreters.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
The findings for observations and interviews regarding the motivational causes validated
some of the assumed influencers identified in previous chapters. The validated influencers were
staff members believing their work is important; staff believing they have the ability to expand
or change programming; and staff believing the continued expansion of programming will attract
additional participants. Recommendations will focus on staff believing they can impact
programming and the importance of expanding programming to attract more student participants.
Findings for Organization Causes

Staff Management Must Develop a Culture of Inclusion: Validated

Findings from interviews. All staff worked to create a culture of inclusion at the UCR
LGBT Resource Center. Staff developed programming around recognizing the importance of
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

71
inclusion and intersectionality of identities. Further, staff enacted the behaviors that model this
amongst student clients.
Jamie modeled a culture of inclusion with everyday interactions with part-time staff but
also when working in the lobby. Jamie explained, “I am the one that, like, students see every
day. I’m usually the first one here, and a lot of times I’m the last one to leave depending on the
day. Students constantly see my face. I actively engage with students. Nine times out of ten I
know the exact name and major of my students.” Jamie continued to describe the importance of
her role and connections with students:
I think that connection and that relationship building is so vital to the student experience,
because they know that there are people who are on campus who really do care about
their existence, and whether they graduate, and if they are doing well, if they found
themselves that day, if they drink enough water that day. The more I work in this field,
the more I realize that that is the exception, not the rule. Because most of the people, staff
and professors, that they interact with on a daily basis barely even know their name. And
I think when students have that personal interaction with somebody who genuinely cares
about their existence on campus, I think my job here is very important.

Jamie described the actions taken in creating a culture of inclusion. Jamie was able to
model it for part-time staff. Management created a culture of inclusion and places great
importance on student centered services. This culture of inclusion was most prevalent with full-
time staff member Jamie and part-time staff members, Dylan and Cameron. These three staff
members spend the most time in the lobby and thus had more opportunities to interact with
students and staff members. Cameron credited the influence of Jamie in this area, especially her
people management skills. Cameron explains Jamie’s approach, “They[Jamie] always check in
with us, like, personally making sure that we’re OK. You know, where we are at with school. If
we have eaten…basic things like that. I feel like most supervisors wouldn’t really care to
address.” When Jamie expresses concern for part-time staff members, they are in fact modeling
student centered approach to student services. More senior staff members may check in with
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

72
staff, but do not consistently involve staff in decision making processes. Further, newer staff
were not confident in their abilities as change agents.
Staff Create Diversity Groups to Foster a Culture of Inclusion: Validated
Findings from interviews. The various ethnic, women and LGBT groups created a space
for diverse students to find students like themselves. As discussed in Chapter Two, the research
suggests that creating groups where students can unite creates a culture of inclusion. Students
can gather with other students with similar backgrounds and experiences. Also, students relate to
cultural challenges of being on campus. As stated above, staff have taken great effort in creating
a space for LGBT students. Robin and Jessie also created spaces for persons of color. Jesse, a
person of color, explains personal struggles, “Growing up I had a lot of struggles and difficulties,
like coming out and getting access to people. It wasn’t really about access to resources. My
resources were, I needed to talk to people.” Staff made a conscious effort to be available to the
student body as a space to find community and a resource for LGBT students.
Findings from observations. When engaging in conversation with students, staff are
developing a culture of inclusion. Jaime was observed as facilitating much of the conversation in
the lobby on one day. Jamie engaged in small talk with students, providing her opinion and
correcting a student on an urban myth. At one point, a student commented on the cold
temperature of the office. Jaime quickly offered her jacket. The student declined stating concern
that they may misplace the jacket. Jaime brushed off the concern and encouraged the student to
use it if needed. Such acts create a culture of inclusion and student centered support.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

73
Staff Develop University Resources are Available to Support Students’ Individual Needs:
Validated
Findings from interviews. The types of support students require vary greatly based on
their individual needs. The UCR LGBT Resource Center staff acknowledged this and developed
resources accordingly. One example of how the LGBT Center provides resources based on a
student’s needs is when programming is developed based on current events. Full-time staff
member, Robin, explained additional resources being made available to students in time of crisis,
such as after the Pulse shooting or after the 2016 election. After both of these events, the LGBT
Resource Center staff organized events in response to the difficult experiences of students.
Following the Pulse nightclub shooting, for example, Robin was swiftly consulted by university
staff on how to approach the event and its effects on the entire student body, not just the LGBT
students. The LGBT Resource Center provided a space for students to mourn and share their
thoughts on the event. Following the 2016 election results, the LGBT Resource Center again
opened its doors to students processing the results. The LGBT Resource Center changes to
support a student’s individual needs in times of crises.
Staff also consider this in day to day planning of resources and events. Robin, a full-staff
member shared the development of training and programming on Asexuality, a sexual
orientation that more and more students were identifying with. Jesse, another full-time staff
member described developing events based on bondage after the 50 Shades of Grey series
became popular. The same staff member was currently working on proposing a dating app
safety workshop after students had voiced concerns.
All staff members voiced concerns about the lack of mental health counselors regularly
available at the LGBT Center. Jamie voiced concern after sharing the vast number of students
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

74
who require and who would greatly benefit from LGBT training mental health professionals.
Recognizing this important need, Robin had transformed the former library into a quiet,
soundproof room, in hopes that a mental health professional would be able to hold sessions at the
Center.
Findings from observations. Full-time staff showed great familiarity with on and off-
campus resources. Part-time staff were not as knowledgeable but would seek assistance when
unsure. In addition to the staff serving as resources, information was maintained and made
readily available by LGBT Resource Center Staff. For curious students, staff encouraged an
individual to use the LGBT Resource Center library for resources. There were various
informational fliers and calendars of events for the LGBT Resource Center and various other
centers and organizations on campus. If a student was unable to speak directly to a staff
member, other resources were made available by the Center staff. The UCR LGBT Resource
Center evolved their programming and services to support students individual needs and has
been validated as an asset,
Synthesis of Findings for Organizational Causes

All assumed influencers were validated by the findings in the area of Organization. The
findings suggest University resources are made available for the students who need them.
Additionally, findings validate the importance of diversity groups creating a culture of inclusion.
Lastly, the findings determine that staff is a key factor in the continued success of the UCR
LGBT Resource Center. Recommendations will be made for each validated influencer in
Chapter 5.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

75
Summary

Several assumed influencers were validated as assets of the staff at the University of
California Riverside LGBT Resource Center. The staff motivation for the purpose and work of
the LGBT Center stood apart as a driving force in the organization’s success. However, as the
Table 6 below illustrates, not all assumed causes were validated.
Table 6 Table of Validated and Not Validated Causes

Validated Influences Validated (V)/Not Validated (NV)
Knowledge
Know Purpose of LGBT Resource Centers V
Know the University’s goals for student success NV
Know campus and local resources for referrals V
Know retention strategies and how to contribute NV
to retention
Know industry best practices NV
Analyze and reflect on data collected and adjust V/NV
Make budgetary allocations based on analysis of V
performance
Articulate how their roll supports retention V

Motivation
Staff believe they have the ability to expand V
Center’s programs
Staff is confident ability to expand the Center’s V
programs
Staff believes expansion of the breadth of programs NV
will make the Center more attractive
to potential members
Staff members believe it is important for them to V
provide a variety of programming

Organizational
Staff management must develop culture of V
inclusion
Diversity groups create culture of inclusion V
University resources must be available to support V
students

In two areas, specifically “Knowing best practices of retention strategies” and “Make
budgetary allocations based on analysis of performance”, there were stark differences between
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

76
responses from full-time and part-time employees. The assumed assets that were not validated
will be further examined and recommendations for further improvements in these areas will be
explained in Chapter 5.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

77
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
PLAN AND CONCLUSIONS
In Chapter 4, the assumed influences were validated. Influences were considered
validated when confirmed by both interview and observation findings. The qualitative data
collected through the structured interviews were coded and reviewed for common themes. Next
the observation data collected were coded and reviewed. Observation findings were compared
and contrasted with interview findings for common themes. Influencers that were supported by
both interviews and observations were considered validated influences.
Chapter 5 explores recommendations, plans for implementing and evaluating the
aforementioned recommendations and conclusions. As this is a promising practices study,
recommendations have been established to address two separate populations: universities and
colleges looking to implement or improve LGBT student services and the University of
California Riverside and its LGBT Resource Center. For the UCR Center, recommendations are
provided only for those influences for which a gap was discovered (i.e., they were not validated).
The recommendations provided in this chapter also include suggestions for
implementation and evaluation. Recommendations for implementation and the related
evaluation plan will follow the new Kirkpatrick 4 Level approach (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). This approach allows for careful implementation and measurement of change results
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Validated influences will be organized into three categories:
knowledge, motivation and organization to continue to align with the Clark and Estes (2008)
model.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

78
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge Influences
Introduction. The following section of this study further explains the findings related to the
knowledge influencers that have been validated to contribute to the success of the staff in
supporting students at higher education institutions. It also explores recommendations based on
assumed influences for University of Riverside’s LGBT Resource Center and universities and
colleges in general. Table 6, below, outlines the assumed influencers that were identified as
serving as assets for the UCR Center, supporting citations and the recommendation for
improvement for universities looking to create or implement enhanced LGBT student services.
There are several knowledge factors that are necessary for LGBT student centers to provide
sufficient student services. Table 7 illustrated the specific knowledge factors is one of the main
factors of successful LGBT student services. Staff must understand the role of the center,
retention strategies, and the value of their task. To ensure all staff have the requisite knowledge,
staff should be provided with job aids, including a directory of resources both local and on
campus. Staff must also foster courageous safe spaces, facilitate communication and build
community. If an assessment reveals any deficits in these areas, training may be an appropriate
response (assuming no other motivational or organizational issue). Staff knowledge is one
critical factor in providing LGBT student services.
Table 7
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations for Implementing LGBT Student
Services at any Institution
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause, Need,
or Asset

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

79
(D) Know the purpose of
LGBT Resource Centers

Job aids are instructional
information that employees can
use on the job to perform a task
(Clark & Estes, 2002).

Learning and motivation are
enhanced if the learner values
the task (Eccles, 2006).
Develop job aids and training
literature for staff to
communicate the mission.

Provide explanation of the task
value in job aids and training
material.

(D) Know the
University’s goals for
student success

When we tell people something
about their jobs they need to
know how to succeed on their
own, we are giving them
information (Clark & Estes,
2002)

Rationales that include a
discussion of the importance and
utility value of the work or
learning can help learners
develop positive values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich, 2003).
Thorough training and
comprehensive job aids must
be provided to all staff.

Staff training and job aids
must illustrate student centered
approach rationales during
training and on boarding.

(D) Know campus and
local resources for
referrals

Job aids are instructional
information that employees can
use on the job to perform a task
(Clark & Estes, 2002).

Facilitating transfer promotes
learning (Mayer, 2011).
Physical guides, resources or
guides to referrals and job aids
shall be provided to all staff
during training.

New training material should
include updates of directory of
local and campus resources at
regularly scheduled intervals.
(P) Know retention
strategies and how the
work of the Center
contributes to overall
retention efforts

Use training for situations where
employees may require
demonstration (Clark & Estes,
2002)

To develop mastery, individuals
must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and
know when to apply what they
Provide instruction and
training on the purpose of
retention and higher education
retention strategies.

Familiarize staff on Centers
role within the university
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

80
have learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)

retention efforts.

Integrate retention strategy
training, to include practical
application and practice with
on boarding.
(D) Know
industry best practices:
purpose of retention and
outreach

Use training for situations where
employees may require
demonstration (Clark & Estes,
2002)

To develop master, individuals
must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and
know when to apply what they
have learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)

Provide training to staff on
industry best practices of
retention strategy and
outreach.

Demonstrate retention
practices with industry best
practices and allow staff to
practice skills with guidance.
(P) Staff members know
how to create safe space.
Use training for situations where
employees may require
demonstration (Clark & Estes,
2002)

Modeled behavior is more likely
to be adopted if the model is
credible, similar (e.g., gender,
culturally appropriate), and the
behavior has functional value
(Denler et al., 2009)

Provide sufficient training for
all staff to be knowledgeable
of how to foster courageous
safe spaces.

Student staff should be
consciously modeling behavior
which allows free expression
of gender identity and
orientation.

(P) Know how to
counsel and support
LGBT students, staff and
faculty.

Use training for situations where
employees may require
demonstration (Clark & Estes,
2002)

Modeled behavior is more likely
to be adopted if the model is
credible, similar (e.g., gender,
culturally appropriate), and the
behavior has functional value
(Denler et al., 2009)
Provide training on counseling,
crisis management and
supportive practices.

All staff must model behavior
which provides individualized
student support.
(P) Know when and how
to refer students to
appropriate resources.

Job aids are instructional
information that employees can
use on the job to perform a task
(Clark & Estes, 2002).
Physical guides and/or job aids
should be provided to all staff
during training.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

81

Facilitating transfer promotes
learning (Mayer, 2011).

Make and maintain updated
directory of local and campus
resources.

(P) Know how to foster
communication and
socialization

Use training for situations where
employees may require
demonstration (Clark & Estes,
2002)

Modeled behavior is more likely
to be adopted if the model is
credible, similar (e.g., gender,
culturally appropriate), and the
behavior has functional value
(Denler et al., 2009)
Train employees on basics on
communication and team
building.

All staff must model behavior
which fosters communication
and socialization.
(P) Know how to deal
with sensitive LGBT
matters with
confidentiality and
respect

Use training for situations where
employees may require
demonstration (Clark & Estes,
2002)

Modeled behavior is more likely
to be adopted if the model is
credible, similar (e.g., gender,
culturally appropriate), and the
behavior has functional value
(Denler et al., 2009)
Provide examples of
appropriate communication
styles, tones and privacy
during training.

All staff must model behavior
which encourages handling
certain LGBT specific or
certain subject matter with
utmost confidentiality.
(M) Analyze and reflect
on data collected and
adjust activities
accordingly

Novel or unexpected subject
matter should be displayed by
providing education (Clark &
Estes, 2002)

Model your own metacognitive
process by talking out loud and
assessing strengths and
weaknesses (Baker, 2006).
Educate and include staff on
reflection and decision making
processes.

Include all staff on thought
process of decision making.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

82
(M) Make budgetary
allocations based on
analysis of performance
Novel or unexpected subject
matter should be displayed by
providing education (Clark &
Estes, 2002)

Model your own metacognitive
process by talking out loud and
assessing strengths and
weaknesses (Baker, 2006).
Provide justification on
program changes.

Include all staff on thought
process of decision making.

The recommendations for UCR focus on those influences that the literature deemed
important and where a gap was discovered for the Center. These influences are presented in
Table 8, which illustrates the improvements that are recommended for the UCR LGBT Resource
Center to further improve on their student service performance.
Table 8
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations for UCR LGBT Resource Center
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset

Validated
(V)
or No (N)
Priority
Yes
(Y), No
(N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
(D) Know the
University’s goals
for student
success

NV Y When we tell people
something about their
jobs they need to know
how to succeed on their
own, we are giving them
information (Clark &
Estes, 2002)

Rationales that include a
discussion of the
importance and utility
value of the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich, 2003).
Thorough training and
comprehensive job aids
must be provided to all
staff.

New training material
shall include
explanation of task
value.

Staff training and job
aids must illustrate
student centered
approach rationales
during training and on
boarding.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

83

(P) Know
retention
strategies and
how the work of
the Center
contributes to
overall retention
efforts

NV N Use training for
situations where
employees may require
demonstration (Clark &
Estes, 2002)

To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating
them, and know when to
apply what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)

Provide instruction and
training on the purpose
of retention and higher
education retention
strategies.

Familiarize staff on
Centers role within the
university retention
efforts.

Integrate retention
strategy training, to
include practical
application and practice
with on boarding.
(D) Know
industry best
practices: purpose
of retention and
outreach

NV N Use training for
situations where
employees may require
demonstration (Clark &
Estes, 2002)

To develop master,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating
them, and know when to
apply what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)

Provide training to staff
on industry best
practices of retention
strategy and outreach.

Demonstrate retention
practices with industry
best practices and allow
staff to practice skills
with guidance.
(M) Make
budgetary
allocations based
on analysis of
performance
NV Y Novel or unexpected
subject matter should be
displayed by providing
education (Clark &
Estes, 2002)

Model your own
metacognitive process
by talking out loud and
assessing strengths and
weaknesses (Baker,
2006).
Provide justification on
program changes.

Include all staff on
thought process of
decision making.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

84
Declarative knowledge solutions. As a result of the validated influencers, several
professional recommendations have been developed. The first declarative knowledge influencer
is staff knowing the purpose of an LGBT center. Clark and Estes (2002) assert that job aids are
a critical factor for training employees on instructional information. Clark and Estes (2002) also
assert that in order to encourage success in an employee's position, employers must provide
adequate training to staff. Therefore, the organization should provide training and literature to
staff regarding the purpose of the organization. In order to align the goals of the organization
with the performance of the individual employee, leaders ensure that employees have the
information they need to do their jobs well. Thus formal and thorough training must be provided
to all staff. Lastly, employees must be knowledgeable of necessary procedures in their
workplace. Job aids are ideal to incorporate with training (Clark & Estes, 2002) as employees
can refer to the aids as they perform a task (Clark & Estes, 2002). It is recommended that formal
training and job aids are incorporated with onboarding for new LGBT Resource Center
employees.
Additional recommendations have been made in order to further improve the LGBT
Resource Center’s performance. Eccles (2006) explains that adding value to a given task can
increase successful learning and motivation by including task value with task job aids, new staff
can improve employee and organizational performance. Additionally, experienced staff should
be careful to model behavior which displays the importance of LGBT resource centers and
required tasks. In order to further develop student-centered approach to student services,
rationales for tasks should be provided during training and onboarding. Clear discussion of the
importance of work can help learners to develop positive attributes (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003). Lastly, Mayer (2011) explains that by facilitating transfer information, instructors or
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

85
trainers are promoting learning. In order to do so, staff must make available training and
references, such as directory of resources which includes task rationales, available to staff. Staff
must consciously model behavior. The above recommendations will improve staff performance.
Procedural knowledge solutions. Procedural barriers have been identified through this
study. One example of this is Clark and Estes (2002) assertion that training for certain situations
or tasks may require leaders to demonstrate certain skills for new employees. As such, it is
recommended that the staff of the organization use demonstrations to train new staff on retention
strategy, counseling and support services, fostering communication, team building and fostering
safe spaces. Providing demonstrations would assist when conveying complex messages or tasks,
such as communication styles, tones and privacy. As previously mentioned, Clark and Estes
(2002) explain the importance of instructional information, particularly reference information,
for performing tasks. Considering this assertion, it is recommended that tangible reference
guides or job aids are provided to all LGBT staff during training.
Other principles that were validated in this study include Schraw and McCrudden’s
(2006) assertion that the key to mastering a task requires acquiring skills, practicing skills and
knowing when to apply aforementioned skills. Considering this assertion, training strategies
should include a practical portion as well as instruction on practical applications. Practicals or
providing opportunity for application of new skills are especially critical for areas of industry
best practices and assessing employee comprehension. Modeled behavior is more likely to be
adopted if the model is similar and credible (Denler et al., 2009). It is recommended that student
staff should be consciously modeling appropriate behavior that supports the free expression of
gender identity and orientation. Leaders should consciously model individualized student support
for less experienced staff. Staff must also model behavior which fosters situation appropriate
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

86
communication and socialization, especially when handling certain sensitive LGBT specific
information.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Finally, in the areas of metacognitive influencers,
Clark and Estes continue to assert the impact of critical knowledge factors on performance.
Clark and Estes (2002) place emphasis on new subject matter. When conveying novel or
unexpected subject matter, sufficient education must be provided to staff (Clark & Estes,
2002). Student services will likely be a new concept to student workers. To new staff,
especially student staff members, concepts such as reflection or decision making processes are
novel and may not be easily understood. Therefore, it is important to provide LGBT center staff
with justifications of organizational decisions, such as program changes when appropriate.
The final metacognitive validated asset involves complex items, such as involving staff in
budgetary decisions. Baker (2006) suggests senior staff display their own metacognitive process
by talking out loud and assessing strengths and weakness when decision making. Exposing staff
to such decision making allows modeling of the process of decision making, therefor allowing
staff to follow the process and learn critical steps in the decision making process for the LGBT
center.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Employee motivation influences performance at any organization. The
following section of this paper examines findings and provides recommendations based on
observations and interviews pertaining to motivation related influences in maintaining or
increasing student support for LGBT resource centers at colleges and universities. From
observation and interview findings, the following recommendations have been developed based
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

87
on the validation conclusion about each influence. The influencers that were validated are
referenced in Table 9 below.
Table 9 also illustrates the necessary motivational factors for universities wishing to
establish or improve LGBT student services. The three major factors are establishing staff self-
efficacy, staff confidence in acting as catalysts of change and importance of inclusion of diverse
populations.
Table 9
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations for University and Colleges
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Individual staff should
believe they have the ability
to successfully expand the
Resource Center’s programs

Choosing to start a task or
actively engage in a task is active
choice (Clark & Estes, 2002).

Provide instructional support
(scaffolding) early on, build in
multiple opportunities for
practice and gradually remove
supports (Pajares, 2006).
Staff should offer
opportunities for all
employees to train,
observe and practice tasks.
Staff is confident in the
team’s ability to
successfully expand the
Resource Center’s programs

People are better off if their
beliefs about themselves are
somewhat more optimistic that is
warranted by objective and
realistic assessments of their
capabilities (Clark & Estes,
2002)

Provide instructional support
(scaffolding) early on, build in
multiple opportunities for
practice and gradually remove
supports (Pajares, 2006).
Staff should encourage
positive training
environments with
opportunities to observe
and practice.
Staff believes the continued
expansion of the breadth of
programs will make the
Giving people some control over
how they accomplish tasks can
Staff should
provide rationales on
values of tasks.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

88
LGBT Resource Center
more attractive to potential
members
increase personal effectiveness
(Clark & Estes, 2002)

Include rationales about the
importance and utility value of
the task (Pintrich, 2003).
Staff members believe it is
important for them to
provide a wide variety of
programming (Utility Value)
Personal and group values towards
shared goals are a factor in
motivation (Clark & Estes, 2002).

Include rationales about the
importance and utility value of
the task (Pintrich, 2003)
Staff must ensure all
members of the
organization share group
values and rationales.

Self-Efficacy. The first validated motivation influence is that individual staff should
believe they have the ability to successfully expand the LGBT Center’s programming. In order
for staff to be motivated to complete tasks, they first must start them (Clark & Estes, 2002) and
believe they are capable of completing them. One critical factor, is preparing an adequate
foundation for staff training. Pajares (2006) asserts that providing instructional scaffolding and
allowing time to practice is critical to staff self-efficacy. This scaffolding is also present in the
second validated motivational influencer, staff must be confident in ability to affect the LGBT
Resource Center’s programming. Clark and Estes (2002), posit that developing optimism about
one’s own abilities contributes to increased staff self-efficacy. Clark and Estes (2002) assertion
echoes Pajares’ (2006) assertion that scaffolding and practice allow staff to build self-
efficacy. Believing in one’s abilities to perform well results in improved performance.
Utility-Value. There are two assumed motivational influencers in the area of utility
value. First, that staff believes that continued expansion will make the Center more attractive to
potential participants. The second, is that staff believes it is important to the Center that more
offerings are presented to participants. The perceived importance of the Center’s staff work,
including day to day planning, are critical to the success of the Center (Clark & Estes, 2002).
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

89
Considering the importance of the work and importance of staff recognizing the importance of
their work, Pintrich (2003) suggests including the importance and value of staff’s goals into the
training of staff. Addressing the importance of their work should assist in translating the value
of staff work. It is recommended that staff provide rationales for their work and ensure all values
are shared amongst staff in the organization.
Table 10
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations for UCR LGBT Resource Center
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset

Validated
(V)
or No (N)
Priority
Yes
(Y), No
(N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Staff believes the
continued expansion
of the breadth of
programs will make
the LGBT Resource
Center more attractive
to potential members
NV N
Giving people some
control over how
they accomplish tasks
can increase personal
effectiveness (Clark
& Estes, 2002)

Include rationales
about the importance
and utility value of
the task (Pintrich,
2003).
Provide rationales,
motivations for
expanding programs,
and ties to inclusion.

Organization Recommendations
Introduction. An organization can affect the performance of employees through
organizational culture. Organizational culture consists of three major components, the
environment culture, group culture and the individual’s culture (Clark & Estes,
2008). Organizations consist of individuals from different cultures. With each individual having
a different personal culture, the variety of individual cultures creates a diverse organizational
culture, which can become a uniting factor (Clark & Estes, 2008). In other words, diversity can
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

90
unite staff. Organizational culture is cultivated by implicit or explicit means (Clark & Estes,
2008). Student services fosters an environment in the organization, an organizational culture,
focusing on individual student needs, inclusion and retention.
Processes. In order to obtain a desired result, the correct processes must be in place
within the organization. Efficient processes ensure staff performance and continued success of
an organization. Johnson and Christensen (2015) explain that effective leadership will share
power. In order to enable staff, leaders must consider all staff input in their decision making
(Johnson & Christensen, 2015). Involving all staff in decision making ensures stakeholder buy
in and cooperation, and ultimately reduces resistance to change.
One assumed organization influence is that university leadership provide sufficient
resources to LGBT Center staff. Because this influence was validated, meaning the provision of
resources is critical to a center’s success, it is recommended that leadership at the university
continue to provide resources to LGBT Resource Center staff. The provision of resources can
include expanding available resources and making reference material available to all Center
staff. The LGBT Resource Center would benefit from receiving resources that are equitable
relative to other organizations on campus, by the number of students served and the type of
assistance provided.
Cultural models. Modeling the expected and desired behavior allows staff to observe
ideal behavior in a work setting. Leaders at the university and organization must show a
commitment to inclusive action in order to reinforce the organization’s value of diversity
amongst students and staff (Angeline, 2011; Prieto, Phipps & Osiri, 2009). Doing so exhibits the
organization's dedication to diversity (Angeline, 2011; Prieto et al., 2009). One assumed
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

91
influencers were validated through this study, including: modeling a culture of inclusion,
equitable available resources, and decision making based on these goals.
Within the Center, itself, one recommendations can be made to maintain or improve
cultural models and the UCR LGBT Resource Center. Cultivating a diverse environment must be
at the forefront of all decision making. For example, Center leadership could review the
demographics of University students and LGBT Resource Center participants on a regular basis,
and adapt program planning to consider shifts in the demographics in order to ensure equal
representation for all ethnic minority students, sexual orientations and gender
identities. University and Resource Center leaders must promote equitable opportunities for all
students. Doing the above can further improve the organizational assets at the UCR LGBT
Resource Center.
Table 11
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations for Universities and Colleges,
including UCR LGBT Resource Center
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(Y, HP, N)
Priority
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Creating a
culture of
inclusion
involves
engaging
diversity groups
creates group
culture of
inclusion.

Y Y
Effective leaders know
that dimensions of
diversity include race,
culture, religion, gender,
sexual orientation, age,
immigrant status,
profession, personality
type, functional
background, education
level, and other
demographic and socio-
economic characteristics.
They integrate these
Leaders must create
platforms for
representation of all
gender identities
and sexual
orientation.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

92
dimensions as well as the
intersection of identities
into their practice
(Angeline, 2011; Cornell
& Hartman, 2002; Prieto,
Phipps & Osiri, 2009)
University
resources must
be available to
support students
and their
individual needs.
Y Y
Effective leaders
demonstrate a
commitment to valuing
diversity through inclusive
action. They promote an
organizational culture that
promotes equity and
inclusion and cultivate an
atmosphere where
diversity is viewed as an
asset to the organization
and its stakeholders
(Angeline, 2011;
Prieto, Phipps & Osiri,
2009)
Leaders must
provide resources
for promoting
equitable access for
all students.
Staff invoke the
organization’s
culture and act in
conjunction with
the needs of the
organization.
Y Y
Effective leaders
demonstrate a
commitment to valuing
diversity through inclusive
action. They promote an
organizational culture that
promotes equity and
inclusion and cultivate an
atmosphere where
diversity is viewed as an
asset to the organization
and its stakeholders
(Angeline, 2011;
Prieto, Phipps & Osiri,
2009)
Cultivating diverse
environment should
be the forefront of
leaders’ goals.
University
leadership must
provide resources
to LGBT center
staff in order to
improve student
services.
Y Y
Effective leaders share
power appropriately. They
consider equity in the
process of allocating
resources (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015)
Leaders must
provide resources to
LGBT staff.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

93
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The following section of this chapter focuses on strategies for implementing
improvements at the University of California Riverside’s LGBT Resource Center.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
In order to implement the aforementioned recommendations, careful planning must occur
by the LGBT Resource Center staff. Additionally, steps must be taken to monitor the
effectiveness of the solution. Staff must consider the plan to implement of recommendations
prior to instituting the change and to establish the evaluation strategy that will be used to
measure the effectiveness of the change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As such, staff can
utilize the Kirkpatrick New World Model to monitor and evaluate the implemented
improvements. The New World Model consists of four levels of evaluation for implemented
change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 1 measures the staff reaction to the change,
including how useful they have found the change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 1
requires staff feedback. Level 2 is the new knowledge and resulting confidence staff gained as a
result of the change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 3 is the behavior change or the
actual act of applying the new information (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Finally, Level 4 is
the end result or the actual measureable change that has resulted from the improvements
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The LGBT Resource Center’s performance goal is outreach to 100% of the LGBT
population on campus, including staff, students and faculty. The organization would like the
campus LGBT population to be aware of the LGBT specific resource and assistance available to
this population to support their needs. Further, the LGBT Resource Center would like to assist
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

94
students in completing their education by eliminating or reducing sexual orientation based or
gender identity based challenges. Using the Clark and Estes (2002) framework to identify assets
and barriers combined with the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) model, several
recommendations for implementation have been developed. The recommendations stated here
are developed in hopes that the LGBT Resource Center staff will be able to improve their
performance.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
The recommendations developed as a result of this study rely heavily on the development
of student demographic data, training and organization improvements. Table 12 below illustrates
recommendations for Kirkpatrick Level 4, results and Leading Indicators. As shown in Table
12, improved data collection and monitoring will allow staff to make informed decisions,
determine the effectiveness of the organization and be able to quantify their efforts on
campus. Staff can make efforts to better track their performance by surveying the LGBT
population on campus, tracking monthly programming attendance and the demographics of its
participants. Data collection can assist with planning upcoming programming and ensuring
equal representation for all student demographics, including ethnic backgrounds, sexual
orientations and gender identities. Staff can also begin to monitor student referrals, specifically
the department or entity the student is being referred to both on or off campus. Monitoring
student referrals can help strengthen the relationship with any frequently utilized external
organizations and possibly identify cross departmental training on campus.

Table 12

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

95
External Outcomes
Leaders must create platforms
for representation of all gender
identities and sexual orientation.
Track frequency and
variety of programs
Track monthly programming
against previous year’s
programing to ensure equal ratio.
Internal Outcomes
Leaders must provide improved
resources to LGBT staff.
Number of on campus
and off campus
resources.

Independent student
surveys.
Monitor use of resource use and
recommendations to off-site
resources.

Staff quarterly evaluation of any
additional university resources that
are not met on campus.
Leaders must cultivate diverse
environment.
Number of diverse
population
participants at the
center.
Create benchmarks ensuring
gender identities and sexual
orientation are programmed
equally.

Staff quarterly evaluation of
variety of programming to ensure
diverse student involvement.
Staff should
provide rationales on values of
tasks.
Creation of new
training material.
Involve all staff in creation and
continuous review of onboarding
material on a monthly basis.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The successful implementation of improvements in any organization relies
heavily on the implementation of the change behaviors. In this study, change must be
implemented by the LGBT Resource Center staff with the support of the University of
California, Riverside community. In order to successfully implement change, several important
or critical behaviors have been identified as critical behaviors. As Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) explain, Level 3 centers on the behavior or implementation of new knowledge. The
critical behaviors identified for this change are: gathering accurate scope the LGBT Resource
Center demographics, improving resources available to students, improving training material,
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

96
cultivating diverse center for participants, and providing rationales for decision making and
duties during staff on boarding. Table 13 illustrated the critical behaviors, metrics, methods and
necessary timing required for successful change implementation.

Table 13

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Staff will track
programs
Number of programs
relevant to each
demographic of the
LGBT Center.
Maintain records of each
Center program and compare
with previous year and current
student demographic.
Monthly
Full-time staff will
provide resources
training material for
all staff.
Number of on campus
and off campus
resources.
Maintain record of referrals on
and off campus review for
necessary updates.
Annually
Staff will monitor the
number of diverse
population
participants.
Number of students
represented from the
demographic of the
LGBT Center.
Maintain records of each
Center participants and
compare with previous year
and current student
demographic.
Quarterly
Staff will develop
new training material.
Develop onboarding
program.
Development and maintenance
of material
Annually

Required drivers. The successful implementation of the above changes relies heavily on the
staff as well as the university administration. According to the Kirkpatrick model, required
drivers act as incentives to reinforce positive results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Implementing the above changes will require staff to increase utility value or increase value of
the tasks they are responsible for completing, which ultimately improves the organization’s
performance. It will also require staff to increase declarative knowledge and increase knowledge
of available resources as well at the value of each task. Metacognitive knowledge will also need
to be improved, specifically in the areas of data gathering and data review for decision
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

97
making. Table 14 illustrates the required drivers necessary to ensure successful implementation
of critical behaviors.
Table 14
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Maintain records of each Center program and events to
compare with previous year and current student
demographic.
Monthly,
Ongoing
1, 2, 3
Maintain record of referrals and review for necessary
updates.
Annually 2
Maintain records of each Center participants and compare
with previous year and current student demographic.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Staff collaboration in development and maintenance of
material.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Feedback with direct supervisor. Annual and
monthly.
1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Staff acknowledgement at staff meetings Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4

Monitoring. In order to ensure continued improvements from the implemented changes
listed in the above Table 13, continued monitoring of the changes must be reviewed. Monitoring
can be done by including the newly gathered data and tracking year over year results. Reviewing
these results will allow the staff to establish performance benchmarks, be accountable for their
performance and compare over previous year’s performance to ensure any other changes are
indeed improvements. Similar monitoring of referrals can be made as the top organizations or
departments can be reviewed and compared annually. Development and continued monitoring
can be implemented by scheduling annual review of training material by staff and monitoring
changes to previous versions of the material.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

98
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Additional training will be required for the staff and stakeholders. It is
recommended staff undergo additional training in the following areas: staff student services, best
practices of data collection, displaying or presenting data, and learning theories. Additional
training in these areas will ensure successful implementation of change.
Program. The implementation of the changes should take approximately six months to
one year to implement and complete. While immediate review and implementation might be
feasible, it is recommended that staff review the current tracking methods and examine options
for survey tools such as Qualtrics or Survey Monkey to develop an anonymous survey system in
order to protect student confidentiality. Further, it is recommended that the review and updating
of material occur when classes are not in session so as not to affect day to day service to
students. The learning goals identified above may require coordination with other departments
but can take place on campus and possibly as a part of staff meetings.
Components of learning. Table 15 can be found below. Table 15 outlines the
components of learning necessary for the program changes. The recommendations outlined
below center around the following components of learning and are critical to successful
implementation of change. In order to measure the effectiveness of training, several methods of
evaluation and timing have been identified to optimize the evaluation of learning.
Table 15
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Provide multiple choice quiz/survey Daily, after completion of training
module
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

99
Staff must model procedure before trainer Daily, after completion of training
module
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Staff members model similar attitudes Daily, ongoing
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Check in with staff each week to gauge
confidence.

Weekly
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Instructor observation Monthly, quarterly

Level 1: Reaction
Table 16, directly below displays the methods of measurement and timing required to
successfully monitor the change to the organization. Regular monitoring is recommended.
Planning regular intervals can allow staff to monitor the effectiveness and plan for updates to
changes to address any shortcomings. Surveying participants should occur at quarterly intervals.
Observations of participants should occur during and after any programs.

Table 16
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance During training
Relevance
Survey Immediately after training
Customer Satisfaction
Survey Participants 3 months following training

Evaluation Tools
A sample survey has been created to assist staff to monitor training engagement,
relevance, behavior and customer satisfaction. This survey is a supplemental evaluation tool. It
should be used in conjunction with observations and quizzes during training. The survey should
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

100
be administered twice: once immediately following completion of training and again 3 months
after training.
Immediately following the program implementation. Staff will be monitored for
progress and confidence during training. At the conclusion of training, staff will be required to
complete an exit survey in order to gauge the knowledge acquired during training and retention
of training material. Survey suggestions are located in Table 17.

Table 17
Immediately After Implementation
Knowledge Item
Declarative
Survey participants to confirm they know
resource information.
I know the contact information for TruEvolution.

I know how to best contact Planned Parenthood.
Procedural
Survey participants to confirm they
understand procedures.
I can help explain the process of student referrals.

I can help a student navigate the Financial Aid
system.
Attitude
Request participants’ feedback as they
model procedure.
I can successfully complete the process.

I can successfully assist students with referrals.

Confidence
Observe participants’ feedback as they
model procedure.
Participants is able to complete the process with
little job aid references.

Participant is able assist students without senior
staff assistance.
Commitment
Observe participants complete tasks after
training.
Participant continues to complete the process
completely and successfully.

Participants looks for areas to improve the process
(notes additional resources).

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

101
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Staff will be provided the
opportunity to provide anonymous feedback. The quarter following the training session, a survey
will be administered to provide feedback on the training. A sample of questions is shown in
Table 18.
Table 18
3 Months Following Implementation
Level Question
L1 Engagement
Survey Participants The information covered in training has been valuable.

The training has improved from the previous methods.

L2 Relevance
Survey Participants After training, I now know more about student resources.

After training, I require less assistance from other staff members.
L3 Behavior
Survey Participants I utilize the job aids when assisting students.

I note when a student requests services which we do not have in
the job aid.
L4 Customer
Satisfaction

Survey Participants I can provide better referrals to walk in students.

I can provide better referrals to students calling in.

Data Analysis and Reporting
Successful implementation will be monitored as new employees arrive to the
organization. Level 4 reporting will allow administration to track results. Employee observations
should occur regularly with feedback delivered at regular intervals, such as daily for newer
employees or weekly/monthly for more seasoned staff. As areas of improvement are identified by
supervisory staff, care should be taken to monitor progress by both supervisor and employee.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

102
Student satisfaction survey results should be gathered annually. After the anonymous
survey results are gathered they should be reviewed by all staff during the organization's summer
reflection period. Based on survey results, staff can establish benchmarks for ensuring equal
representation of all ethnic groups, sexual orientations and gender identified. The results of the
survey should be shared with administration and can be utilized for leverage during budgetary
discussions. Additionally, it is believed the equal representation of the student body will contribute
to successful outreach.
With the above changes in place, it is believed the changes will be successful and ultimately
result in performance improvements for the organization. Results will not be immediate. However,
the senior staff sharing knowledge and developing a mentor relationship with newer staff will
further strengthen the department. The less experienced part-time staff will benefit from senior
staff experience. With improved knowledge of retention strategies, all staff will be expertly
equipped to service students and ultimately assist the university in reaching its student retention
goals.
Summary
The University of California Riverside LGBT Resource Center has earned an excellent
reputation for the services they provide to its LGBT students. The student testimony and
programming have established the organization in the unique position of a role model for
exemplary student services. However, like any organization, there is room for improvement.
Considering the dynamic nature and potential of this organization, it is critical the LGBT
Resource Center continue to improve and expand. In order to implement change, several areas
were identified as areas of improvement, including improving staff training and improved data
collection. Careful and well planned change implementation requires monitoring of staff
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

103
reaction, learning, behavior, and results at the LGBT Resource Center. By implementing the
aforementioned changes, the University of California Riverside LGBT Resource Center will
continue to improve its most important asset, the staff. Improving staff knowledge and
performance, the organization will continue to improve student services and ultimately maintain
excellent LGBT student success.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach

All methodological approaches have strengths and weaknesses, including the Clark and
Estes (2008) Gap Analysis. One weakness of this approach is that the approach does not support
the type of study, a promising practice model. The approach seeks to identify gaps in
organizations’ performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is a method of diagnosing and solving
organizational issues. The Clark and Estes (2008) approach does not acknowledge how to
identify areas that an organization excels at or how to approach further improvement of a
smoothly functioning organization.
The strength of the study lies with the simplicity of the approach. By categorizing issues
into one or more of the three areas, knowledge, motivation or organization, it simplifies the
study. A stronger study would not focus on the shortcomings but areas of excellence.
Limitations

As mentioned above in the strengths and weaknesses section, a better method for this
particular student would include consideration for the areas of success rather than focus on
shortcomings or gaps. The stakeholder of focus, the staff at the University of California
Riverside LGBT Resource Center, is small. A stronger study would examine all stakeholders,
including students, staff and faculty. Further, student perspective would have strengthened the
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

104
student. A quantitative survey of students at the university would also strengthen the results and
findings of this study.
Future Research

There is little research in the area of student services for LGBT university and college
students. As such, there are several areas that have been identified as necessary for future
research. The following outlines the recommendations for future research in order to improve the
area of study.
Organizational Improvements
The organization of focus had clearly set values, goals and mission statement. The goals
of the organization should be improved by developing a form of collecting quantitative data.
This would allow the organization to develop benchmarks and measurable results. One of the
major potential benefits of qualitative data collection in assuring all identities are equally
represented. Another potential area for improvement is the continuation of expansion of
programming and resources. One factor that was echoed in all interviews was the prominence of
mental health issues. While all staff shared experiences of students facing mental health issues,
much of this is anecdotal. By providing qualitative proof of the prevalence of students with
mental health issues, expanded services such as regular LGBT trained counselors and therapist
hours can be justified in the department’s budget.
Study Limitations
This study thought to gather the themes surrounding successful LGBT student services.
However, like any research student, this student had limitations. The student can be improved by
exploring other methodologies. There is currently limited research studies focusing on LGBT
students and necessary student services. It would be beneficial for further study be focused on
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

105
qualitative data. The area of LGBT student services would benefit from having the quantified
results of student services. Additionally, additional research would benefit from exploring the
student perspective of LGBT student services. Finally, additional research should seek to gather
qualitative and quantitative data on a much larger scale. It would be most beneficial to gather
data on a national scale to discover regional themes and the resulting student need differences.
Recommendations based on study findings
Several themes emerged throughout the interviews and observations that were not
explored in the literature review. These themes are LGBT student mental health services, LGBT
student suicide and intersectionality.
Staff expressed great concern regarding LGBT students’ mental health and more
specifically the lack of access to LGBT trained mental health professionals. Staff members
reiterated the unspoken objective of the LGBT Resource Center: to keep students alive. With
appropriate resources, such as regular office hours scheduled at the LGBT Resource Center,
students can focus on academic challenges and staff can focus on organizational planning and
retention efforts rather than constant crisis intervention.
Staff also emphasized concern for recognizing intersectionality in student services and
staff representation of different identities. It is recommended that the Center continue to focus on
intersectionality and diversity when organizing programming and hiring.

Conclusion

While there has been much progress in the area of LGBT rights and resources in the
United States of America, there is still much progress needed. Further, college and university
campuses can still improve in this area as well. The problem of practice is inadequate student
services for LGBT student populations. It is critical to resolve this problem. The cost of not
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

106
solving the problem is high with consequences including depression, suicide and substance
abuse. By maintaining student centered student services and resources for at risk populations,
universities and colleges can set a precedent for other organizations. University of California
Riverside’s LGBT Resource Center is an exemplary organization. Exemplary organizations
serve as models and can make organizational change and enhancements easier for other
organizations to implement. This student has outlined the exceptional policies and practices and
developed recommendations to ensure the University of California Riverside’s LGBT Resource
Center remains a catalyst for change for many years to come.

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

107
Appendix A: Interview Questions
1. Could you please tell me a bit about your role here at the LGBT Resource Center?
a. Why did you want to work at the LGBT Resource Center?
b. How long have you been working here?
c. Can you describe a typical day here at the LGBT Resource Center?
2. How would you explain the goal of the LGBT Resource Center?
3. How would you describe the day-to-day functions of the LGBT Resource Center?
a. How are students directed to resources?
4. Can you walk me through the training process as a new employee at the LGBT
Resource Center?
a. What other types of training do you participate in?
b. What resources, electronic or physical, that you rely on daily?
c. I was given the set of CAS standard the Center follows. What do you know
about CAS regulations and standards?
d. Most universities have international students; can you tell me about the
international population at UCR?
i. Can you share any cross cultural training for Center staff?
5. Retention is a common theme in university student services. How does the LGBT
Resource Center fit into the goal of retention?
6. What is the LGBT Resource Center role in the university community?
a. Tell me about the university resources that you refer students to?
b. Have students approached you with issues that you weren’t able to counsel?
7. Can you share some of the events the Center provides?
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

108
a. How is the programming developed?
i. Who are the individuals in charge of decision-making?
ii. To what extent are you allowed input?
8. Describe the LGBT Resource Center staff’s expectations of your work?
a. In what ways does the fellow staff create high expectations for you?
9. How important do you believe your work at the LGBT Resource Center is?
a. Could you describe at what point you realized the importance of your work
here?
10. I’d like to ask you some questions about community next. Can you tell me a little
about the Riverside community?
a. Can you tell me about the UCR community? How supportive are they of the
LGBT community?
b. Can you describe what it’s like working or being a part of the LGBT
university student community?
c. How does bringing the LGBT student population together ensure success for
all students?
d. Can you share any outreach that goes beyond the university and to the city of
Riverside?
11. Can you tell me about the role of the Center’s budget in day to day decisions?
a. Can you tell me if the Center has a budget equal to ethnic centers on campus?
b. Can you tell me how the UCR determines the Center budget?
12. How does staff determine whether the LGBT Resource Center is serving as a safe
zone for all LGBT students on campus?
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

109
a. Can you tell if how the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando impacted the
Center?
13. In what ways, if ever, does the organization take time to reflect on current
programming and events?
14. How do you know you have effectively assisted a student?
a. What does success look like?
b. In an ideal world, what would the LGBT Center services look like?
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

110
Appendix B: Field Notes Format
Date and Time Event Type Observation KMO

Conclusion time/Notes:
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

111
Appendix C: Participant Email

Hello,

My name is Kristine Catano. I am a doctoral student at University of Southern California at
Rossier School of Education. I am conducting research on university student services,
specifically LGBT resource center staffs. The UCR LGBT Center has been identified as a
remarkable center and I am interested in learning about the strategies you use and the resources
you connect with to provide service to students. I am inviting you to participate because you
currently work at the UCR LGBT Resource Center.

Participation is voluntary and you may halt participation at any time in the study. Participation in
this research includes a one to two-hour interview regarding your training and experiences at the
Resource Center. If you agree to participate, I expect the total commitment to be no more than
two hours.

If you have any questions or would like to participate in this research, I can be reached at 619-
495-9398 or kcatano@usc.edu.

Best regards,

Kristine Catano

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

112
Appendix D: Information Sheet

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

113

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

114

LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

115
References
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917–931
Agrawal, S. R., & Ghosh, C. K. (2014). Inculcation of values for best practices in student support
services in open and distance Learning—The IGNOU experience. Journal of Human
Values, 20(1), 95-111.
Al Kandari, N. (2008). Factors affecting students' retention at Kuwait university. College Student
Journal, 42(2), 483.
Almeida, J., Johnson, R. M., Corliss, H. L., Molnar, B. E., & Azrael, D. (2009). Emotional
distress among LGBT youth: The influence of perceived discrimination based on sexual
orientation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 1001-1014. doi:10.1007/s10964-
009-9397-9
Alonso, M., Schimel, L., & Ebooks Corporation. (2013;2012;). Best inclusion practices: LGBT
diversity. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: expectations and
perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249-255.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Betteley, P., Harr, N., & Lee, R. E. (2013). Sharing Antarctic research in the classroom:
Authentic outreach as a means of improving student performance. Performance
Improvement, 52(1), 16-23. doi:10.1002/pfi.21317
Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Muthiah, R. N. (2010). The role of service-learning on the
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

116
retention of first-year students to second year. Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 16(2), 38.
Borgogni, L., Russo S. D., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee
perceptions of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective
efficacy. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
Bulu, S. T., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Communication behaviors and trust in collaborative online
teams. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 132.
Campus Pride Index: National Listing of LGBTQ-Friendly Colleges and Universities. (2015,
June 4). LGBT-Friendly campus climate index. Retrieved from
http://www.campusprideindex.org/campuses/details/171?campus=university-of-
california,-riverside
Sharer, A. (2016, October 5). Sexuality and Gender Activism. Retrieved July 07, 2017, from
https://apps.carleton.edu/student/orgs/saga/pronouns/
Clark, R. (2015). Gap Analysis: Organizational Culture and Context Analysis.
Clark, R. E. and Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2011). The Role of lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender programs and services. Washington, DC.
DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement
and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal,
38(1), 66.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

117
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Domina, T. (2009). What works in college outreach: Assessing targeted and schoolwide
interventions for disadvantaged students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
31(2), 127-152. doi:10.3102/0162373709333887
Espclage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2008). 7. School Psychology Review. 37(2). 155-159.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Ellis, S. J. (2009). Diversity and inclusivity at university: A survey of the experiences of lesbian,
gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) students in the UK. Higher Education, 57(6), 723-739.
doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9172-y
Fine, L. E. (2012). The context of creating space: Assessing the likelihood of college
LGBT center presence. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 285-299.
doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0017
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Chapter 4, pp. 79-98.
Flanders, C. E., LeBreton, M. E., Robinson, M., Bian, J., & Caravaca-Morera, J. A.
(2017;2016;). Defining bisexuality: Young bisexual and pansexual people's
voices. Journal of Bisexuality, 17(1), 39-19. doi:10.1080/15299716.2016.1227016
Gates, G. J., PhD. (2006, October). Same-sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

118
Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey. Retrieved August 13,
2016, from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Same-Sex-
Couples-GLB-Pop-ACS-Oct-2006.pdf
Glossary of Terms. (2016). Retrieved July 8, 2016, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-
of-terms
Gunnarsson, L., Örebro universitet, & Institutionen för humaniora, utbildnings- och
samhällsvetenskap. (2017;2015;). Why we keep separating the ‘inseparable’:
Dialecticizing intersectionality. European Journal of Women's Studies, 24(2), 114-127.
doi:10.1177/1350506815577114
Ivory, B. T. (2005). LGBT students in community college: Characteristics, challenges, and
recommendations. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(111), 61-69.
doi:10.1002/ss.174
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Chapter 19: Descriptive statistics. Educational
research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. (5
th
ed.) (pp. 516-547).
Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 25–58.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kjeldsen, A. M. (2012). Vocational study and public service motivation: Disentangling
the socializing effects of higher education. International Public Management Journal,
15(4), 500.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

119
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for
applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Chapter 4, pp. 66-68.
LGBT Resource Center. (2015, May 21). The LGBT student experience. Retrieved from
http://out.ucr.edu/whoweare/ourmission.html
Madgett, P. J., & Bélanger, C. H. (2008). First university experience and student retention
factors. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 38(3), 77.
Marr, D., Nicoll, C., Treuer, K. v., Kolar, C., & Palermo, J. (2013). Improving student
preparedness and retention-perceptions of staff at two universities. Higher Education
Studies, 3(4), 1.
Martin, K., Galentino, R., & Townsend, L. (2014). Community college student success: The role
of motivation and self-empowerment. Community College Review, 42(3), 221-241.
doi:10.1177/0091552114528972
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design
and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chapter 4, pp. 82, 84-89.
McDermott, E., Roen, K., & Scourfield, J. (2008). Avoiding shame: Young LGBT people,
homophobia and self-destructive behaviours. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 10(8), 815-
829. doi:10.1080/13691050802380974
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

120
McKinley, C., & Wright, P. (2010;2011). Mental health resources for LGBT collegians:
A content analysis of college counseling center web sites. Journal of Homosexuality,
58(1), 138-147. doi:10.1080/00918369.2011.533632
Messinger, L. (2013). Reflections on LGBT students in social work field
education. Field Educator, 3(1), 1-16.
Mobley, S.D., & Johnson, J.M. (2015). The role of HBCUs in addressing the unique
needs of LGBT students. New Directions for Higher Education, 170, 79-89.
Doi:10.1002/hw.20133
Molina, A. (2016, August 31). Latina, Latino, Latinx. What is this new term, Latinx? - Region
IV-W Post. Retrieved July 07, 2017, from https://www.naspa.org/constituent-
groups/posts/latina-latino-latinx.-what-is-this-new-term-latinx
Nell, C. E., & Cant, M. C. (2014). Determining student perceptions regarding the most important
service features and overall satisfaction with the service quality of a higher education
institution. Management, 19(2), 63-87.
Nevins Stanulis, R., & Russell, D. (2000). “Jumping in”: Trust and communication in mentoring
student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(1), 65-80. doi:10.1016/S0742-
051X(99)00041-4
Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2012). Anticipated discrimination and a career
choice in nonprofit: A study of early career lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered (LGBT)
job seekers. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(4), 332-352.
doi:10.1177/0734371X12453055
Nicol, H. (2011). college student leadership within the lgbt community. International Journal of
Arts & Sciences, 4(25), 15.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

121
O'Keeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student Journal,
47(4), 605.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Perez, Z., & Husey, H. (2014). A hidden crisis: Including the LGBT community when
addressing sexual violence on campus. Retrieved January 10, 2015
Peter, T., Taylor, C., & Edkins, T. (2016). Are the kids all right? The impact of school climate
among students with LGBT parents. Canadian Journal of Education, 39(1), 1.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4),
667–686
Poynter, K. J., & Tubbs, N. J. (2008). Safe zones: Creating LGBT safe space ally programs.
Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(1), 121. doi:10.1300/J524v05n01_10
Prieto, L. C., Phipps, S. T., & Osiri, J. K. (2011). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 4(4),
13-22.
Roper, L. D. (2005). The role of senior student affairs officers in supporting LGBT students:
Exploring the landscape of one's life. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(111),
81-88. doi:10.1002/ss.177
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

122
Chapter 6, pp. 85-92.
Sallingo, J. J. (2015, July 20). How many colleges and universities do we really need? Retrieved
September 27, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2015/07/20/how-many-colleges-and-universities-do-we-really-need/
Salman, A. (2014, June 1). How to Obtain A FAFSA Dependency Override for LGBTQ College
Students. Retrieved June 9, 2015
Sanlo, R. (2004). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students: Risk, resiliency, and retention.
Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 97-110. doi:10.2190/FH61-VE7V-HHCX-
0PUR
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Seider, S. C., Rabinowicz, S. A., & Gillmor, S. C. (2011). The impact of philosophy and
theology service-learning experiences upon the public service motivation of
participating college students. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(5), 597-628.
Seifert, T. A. (2014). Student affairs and services staff in English-speaking Canadian
postsecondary institutions and the role of CACUSS in professional education. Journal of
College Student Development, 55(3), 295-309. doi:10.1353/csd.2014.0031
Stukalina, Y. (2014). Identifying predictors of student satisfaction and student
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

123
motivation in the framework of assuring quality in the delivery of higher education
services. Business, Management and Education, 12(1), 127-137.
doi:10.3846/bme.2014.09
Squire, D., & Norris, L. (2014). Supporting students in the margins: Establishing a first-year
experience for LGBTQA students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
51(2), 195-206. doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0019
University of California. (2015, July 15). Ensuring inclusive campus environments for LGBT
students, faculty and staff. Retrieved from
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/ensuring-inclusive-campus-environments-
lgbt-students-faculty-and-staff
University of California, Riverside. (2014, November 10). Demographic snapshot. Retrieved
from http://diversity.ucr.edu/statistics/demographics.html
University of California, Riverside. (2015, June 25). Facts. Retrieved from
https://www.ucr.edu/about/facts.html
Retrieved from online lecture. Website: 2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu
University of Southern California. (n.d.). Retrieved June 04, 2016, from
http://oprs.usc.edu/education/informed-consent/
Vaserfirer, A. (2012). (in)visibility in lesbian and gay student organizing: The case of gay
student services. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(4), 610.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.665706
Westbrook, L. (2009). Where the women aren’t: Gender differences in the use of LGBT
resources on college campuses. Journal of LGBT Youth 6(4), 369-394. Doi
10.1080/19361650903295769
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

124
Wood, K., Kissel, B., & Miller, E. (2016). Safe zones: Supporting LGBTQ youth through
literature. Voices from the Middle, 23(4), 46.
Yamamoto, T., Tagami, M., & Nakazawa, M. (2012). A proposal for methodology for
negotiation practicum with effective use of ICT: A technology enhanced course for
communication for trust building. TOJET : The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 11(4)
Young, S.L., & McKibban, A.R. (2014). Creating safe places: A collaborative
autoethnography on LGBT social activism. Sexuality& Culture, 18(2), 361-384. Doi:
10.1007/s12119-013-9202-5
LGBT STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER

125
Footnotes
Institution has agreed to be identified.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) university student populations and the factors causing the LGBT population to be at risk for attrition. By using a promising practice format and examine an exemplary organization, University of California Riversides LGBT Resource Center, the study seeks to identify the student service factors which help the organization meet the unique needs of the LGBT population and create equitable student services. The study seeks to identify factors in the staff and organization which allow it to provide outstanding student services.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Bystander behavior in relation to violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered high school students

PDF

Factors influencing special education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school district

PDF

A case study of an evidence-based approach to resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii

PDF

Coaching to increase retention in online degree completion programs

PDF

Discovering the path to lesbian gay bisexual transgender support at a religious institution

PDF

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

PDF

The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students

PDF

Emerging adult peer provider specialists and successful college participation: An innovation study

PDF

Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis

PDF

The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging

PDF

Eliminating the technology equity gap for students through parent support at home: an evaluation study

PDF

Completion in online learning: graduate students' perspectives

PDF

Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors

PDF

Diversity and talent: how to identify and recruit classical music students from among underrepresented populations

PDF

Online student attrition in blended learning programs

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

Disclosure of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identity among U.S. service members after repeal of LGBT military service bans

PDF

Provisional admission in higher education: a case study in retention, persistence, and matriculation in academia

PDF

Factors that facilitate or hinder staff performance during management turnover

Asset Metadata

Creator Catano, Kristine (author)

Core Title Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student center: a promising practice study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 10/13/2017

Defense Date 10/13/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag at-risk population,attrition,bisexual,college,Gay,lesbian,LGBT,LGBT resource center,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource center,retention,student affairs,student services,student success,transgender,University

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Harrison, Kelby (committee member)

Creator Email kcatano@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-447280

Unique identifier UC11263983

Identifier etd-CatanoKris-5838.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-447280 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CatanoKris-5838.pdf

Dmrecord 447280

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Catano, Kristine

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA