Campus Recreation NASPA Consortium Survey, Spring 2013 Key Findings

Campus Recreation NASPA Consortium Survey, Spring 2013 Key Findings Prepared by Sunny Gittens, Director for Campus Life Assessment INTRODUCTION PURPOSE: RESPONSE RATE: The NASPA Consortium Campus Recreation Survey was developed through a partnership between CampusLabs, NASPA, and NIRSA. UNLV was able to customize the instrument and add additional questions. The instrument is designed to assess the use, satisfaction, and student learning outcomes associated with the SRWC and Campus Recreation programs. National benchmark data will be available. The survey was distributed electronically to 7,389 randomly selected undergraduate, graduate, and professional UNLV students (this is one-third of the student population). Additionally, the survey was sent to all SRWC community members with an email address on file, posted on UNLV Today for faculty/staff, and posted on Rave for all students. Everyone completing the survey was entered to win $100 in RebelCash and the first 500 people to complete the survey received a coupon for $3 off on campus dining. Of the 7,389 mass emails distributed to students, there was a 12 response rate. Overall, there were 1,016 student respondents. The demographics of student respondents are consistent with the university profile, though there were a higher percentage of full-time and female respondents. There were also 18 staff, 9 faculty, 2 alumni, and 1 community member respondents. STUDENT RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Enrollment Frequency Percentage UNLV Percentage Freshman 104 13.3 20.2 Sophomore 136 17.4 13.9 Junior 214 27.3 16.7 Senior 179 22.9 29.6 Graduate 143 18.3 15.3 Professional 7 0.9 2.8 Status Frequency Percentage UNLV Percentage Part-time 92 11.8 33.6 Full-time 689 88.2 66.4 Sex Frequency Percentage UNLV Percentage Male 262 33.4 44.6 Female 507 64.6 55.4 Transgender 1 0.1 Campus Recreation Consortium 2013 Survey Key Findings 1

Undergraduate Race/Ethnicity Frequency Percentage UNLV Percentage Native 4 0.5 0.8 Asian / Pacific 206 26.3 18.3 Black 49 6.3 8.3 Hispanic 97 12.4 16.7 White 341 43.6 46.4 Two or more 44 5.6 3.8 Nonresident alien 3.1 Unknown 42 5.4 2.5 FINDINGS Numbers in green font mean the UNLV 2013 student response is statistically higher than the UNLV 2010 response or Peer institutions 2013 student response. Numbers in red font means the UNLV 2013 response is statistically lower. Percentage of respondents using each: mean 2010 F/S Peers 2013 SRWC (facility, programs, services) 81 79 100 75 Cardio vascular 81 86 85 83 Weight training / free weights 65 75 85 70 Group Fitness 46 51 50 38 Open recreation 40 53 10 48 Aquatics /pool 38 42 42 38 Racquet sports 32 44 30 33 Wellness programs 32 38 16 20 Intramurals 24 34 5 33 Outdoor adventure rentals 11 29 0 Fitness assessment 18 27 20 14 Personal training 14 25 26 17 Sport Clubs 17 22 0 18 PEX Classes 20 0 18 Time of Day during the week (Mon-Fri): Early evening (5-8pm) 28 30 25 27 Afternoon (2 5pm) 19 20 15 20 Late evening (after 8pm) 13 16 0 15 Mid-day (11am 2pm) 16 13 15 15 Morning (8 11am) 11 11 10 12 Early morning (before 8am) 9 7 35 9 Never 4 3 4 Time of Day during the weekend (Sat Sun): Never 35 20 39 30 Mid-day (11am 2pm) 13 22 11 18 Afternoon (2-5pm) 15 18 17 17 Morning (8 11am) 12 16 22 15 Early evening (5-8pm) 12 11 11 11 Late evening (after 8pm) 10 9 0 7 Early morning (before 8am) 4 5 0 3 Average time per a visit: 60 to 89 minutes 32 39 29 31 30 to 59 minutes 45 38 62 43 more than 90 minutes 10 15 10 12 less than 30 minutes 14 9 0 15 Campus Recreation Consortium 2013 Survey Key Findings 2

mean 2010 F/S Peers 2013 Factors impede your use: No time 25 24 27 Not aware of offerings 10 14 Programs not at convenient times 7 10 9 I use facilities off campus 10 7 18 Parking was a problem 8 8 Facilities too crowded 4 6 9 Do not know how to use the equipment 4 6 Do not like to exercise 5 5 Lack of privacy 6 5 Hours are not convenient 3 5 Injury or disability 3 3 Price not affordable 2 3 9 Childcare not available 4 2 18 Facilities too spread across campus 4 2 Too far from house* 2 Not comfortable there* 2 Other rec facilities do you currently use: Outdoor 27 27 21 Home equipment 18 19 23 Community parks and recreation 16 15 21 Local health club 15 14 14 Facilities at your place of residence 20 11 14 None 11 14 Importance (impact of SRWC) Percentage answering moderately or very important to the following: Mean score is on a 4 point scale. SRWC - Deciding to attend UNLV 40 2.19 2.09 2.17 SRWC facilities- Deciding to continue 52 2.50 2.78 2.42 (1) CRS Programs Deciding to continue 41 2.26 2.50 2.17 (1) Recreation/fitness Prior to UNLV 54 2.58 2.71 2.72 Rec/fitness After leave UNLV 71 2.98 3.09 2.98 Healthy lifestyle Prior to UNLV 73 3.08 3.12 3.11 Healthy lifestyle After leave UNLV 92 3.52 3.55 3.51 Satisfaction: Percentage reporting somewhat or very satisfied or reporting somewhat or strongly agree (5 point scale, filtered out no basis to judge responses): Overall satisfaction 62 3.59 Towel service is important to me 60 3.76 81 SRWC Location, space, equipment Number of cardio machines 87 4.44 4.47 80 3.96 (1) Number of weight machines 79 4.14 4.32 67 4.09 Fitness equipment is available 80 4.09 3.70 (1) Location of SRWC 83 4.28 4.29 95 4.15 Number of free weights 77 4.09 4.26 77 3.98 (2) Fitness equipment is available 80 4.09 4.22 89 Amount of indoor recreation space 80 4.18 4.23 71 4.03 (2) Availability of facilities for open rec 76 4.07 4.02 42 3.91 (2) Adequate stretching areas 66 3.74 3.91 50 3.51 (2) Amount of outdoor recreation space 63 3.80 3.87 64 4.00 Campus Recreation Consortium 2013 Survey Key Findings 3

mean 2010 F/S Peers 2013 Hours SRWC Hours of operation Mon-Fri 88 4.44 4.44 85 4.38 SRWC Hours of operation Sat-Sun 77 4.11 4.14 67 3.94 Pool hours of operation 72 3.93 4.12 87 3.64 (1) Staff Recreation staff are friendly 83 4.22 4.19 86 4.32 Fitness class instructors 80 4.25 4.22 88 4.28 Lifeguards / aquatics staff 72 4.08 4.20 100 4.22 Recreation staff are knowledgeable 75 4.04 4.07 77 4.16 Rec staff are available to answer?? 80 4.16 4.17 79 4.22 Wellness Zone staff 77 4.22 Intramural sports staff and referees 67 3.70 Cleanliness Recreation facilities are clean 92 4.47 4.53 91 4.45 Rec facilities provide safe environ 93 4.54 4.56 90 4.57 Rec facilities maintained to encourage 91 4.48 4.51 91 4.38 participation Fitness equipment is clean 87 4.34 4.49 95 4.37 Fitness equipment is well-maintained 85 4.29 4.52 90 4.33 Cleanliness of the pool 81 4.26 4.29 100 4.18 Cleanliness of locker rooms 78 4.10 4.21 90 4.17 Aquatics Availability of pool for lap / free swim 75 4.06 4.10 86 3.83 (1) Aquatics classes 58 3.77 3.86 50 3.67 (2) Group Fitness Number of group fitness classes 75 4.06 4.00 67 4.07 Variety of fitness classes 80 4.14 4.03 56 4.20 Days and times of fitness classes 61 3.61 3.54 33 3.62 (2) Intramural sports Number of team intramural sports 76 4.09 4.24 4.33 Number of individual IM sports 72 3.99 4.17 4.21 Variety of team intramural sports 77 4.12 4.16 4.33 Variety of individual IM sports 77 4.12 4.12 4.24 Participation costs for IM sports 63 3.77 64 Location of outdoor fields 63 3.80 60 Quality (condition) of outdoor fields 60 3.64 52 Sport Clubs Number of Sport Clubs offered 71 3.89 4.16 4.30 Variety of Sport Clubs offered 70 3.87 4.18 4.28 Registration process for Sport Clubs 66 3.83 70 Resources to assist Sport Clubs 68 3.83 Wellness / Fitness Wellness facilities 87 4.41 4.50 4.40 Fitness assessments 74 4.06 4.33 4.19 Personal training 75 4.10 4.36 4.08 Relaxation room 72 4.12 80 Dietician services 68 3.98 72 Outdoor Rentals 62 3.68 Campus Recreation Consortium 2013 Survey Key Findings 4

mean 2010 F/S Outcomes -percent answering somewhat or strongly agree related to SRWC programs - 5 pt scale Peers 2013 Would recommend to others 93 4.57 4.55 95 4.45 (2) Offers something for everyone 90 4.40 4.35 95 4.30 (2) Enjoy using SRWC activities/facility 84 4.35 4.40 86 4.38 Recreational needs met 85 4.32 4.46 90 4.18 (2) Contribute to quality of life 86 4.31 4.25 90 4.26 Expanded interest in stay fit/healthy 75 4.04 4.03 77 4.04 Provided w skills will use after college 64 3.86 3.84 3.83 SRWC inclusive of diverse pop 80 4.27 Wellness/fitness Outcomes Percent indicating participation in SRWC activities somewhat or definitely enhances 3 pt scale Overall health 92 2.43 2.44 2.45 Feeling of well-being 91 2.39 2.42 2.43 Fitness level 88 2.33 2.39 100 2.39 Physical strength 87 2.34 2.38 95 2.38 Athletic ability 83 2.21 2.31 85 2.28 Stress management 85 2.29 2.28 2.33 Weight control 84 2.24 2.26 2.25 Balance coordination 81 2.15 2.21 70 2.15 Ability to get a good night sleep 72 2.06 2.06 2.07 Learning Outcomes Personal motivation 83 2.28 79 Self-confidence 84 2.19 2.20 75 2.22 Concentration 76 2.05 2.10 65 2.07 Time management 56 1.74 2.05 2.13 Respect for others 59 2.01 2.00 55 2.03 Multi-task management skills 67 1.92 1.99 1.95 Academic performance 67 1.89 1.95 1.93 Sense of belonging 66 1.90 1.97 40 1.95 Sense of adventure 66 1.89 1.97 30 1.96 Ability to develop friendships 62 1.87 1.94 1.95 Communication skills 57 1.76 1.81 25 1.81 Problem solving 54 1.69 1.75 25 1.73 Leadership skills 50 1.65 1.72 1.72 Multicultural awareness 57 1.83 30 1.85 Group cooperation skills 56 1.74 1.82 Marketing / Promotion Recreational activities and services are 55 3.36 3.41 35 3.51 effectively promoted Flyers effectively promote activities 57 3.51 37 3.62 Able to find information you were looking for on the web 95 92 90 96 How do you learn about what is happening in SRWC? Web 23 26 29 Word of mouth 19 26 12 Flyers 22 23 19 Social networking 12 5 14 Campus Recreation Consortium 2013 Survey Key Findings 5

mean 2010 How often visit the web page weekly 18 20 12 monthly 17 15 24 1-2 semester 26 30 40 never 39 35 24 What do you use the web page for hours of operation 38 35 33 info on activities 27 28 26 schedule of events 24 24 24 OVERALL UNLV EXPERIENCE If could start over, would attend UNLV again 77 72 77 Plan to enroll at UNLV next semester 90 3.86 89 3.84 F/S Peers 2013 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS IMPACT ON USE The following categories of students are more inclined to use SRWC (in order of significance): COMPARED TO Intercollegiate athletes 87 78 (non athlete) Reside on campus 97 83 (off), 77 (parents), 62 (spouse) Members of student organizations 84 74 (not involved) Enrolled full time 80 64 (part time) Male 81 77 (female) All of the above are significant at the.000 level. Class standing, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation did not have a significant correlation with use of SRWC. There was not a statistical difference by major, but there was a noticeable difference with 93 of Health Science students using the SRWC and only 60 of undeclared and 54 of education majors. The farther students reported living from the SRWC correlated with less use of the SRWC. CONDENSED QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK 1. In what other ways has your participation in Recreation and Wellness activities enhanced your experience at UNLV? 70 Motivate to stay healthy / reduce stress /improve fitness / weight management 51 Sense of community / place to meet friends / involvement outside of class / something to do between classes 16 Convenient / saves $ from gym membership 14 Love SRWC / better than other LV gyms / better than other university gyms 7 Health center and counseling services 2. Suggestions for improvement and additional offerings requested: 65 More group classes Campus Recreation Consortium 2013 Survey Key Findings 6

35 None great as it is 19 Climbing Wall 15 More yoga 10 Bikram / Hot Yoga 12 More dance classes (Zumba, hip hop) 10 Bellydance 3 Pilattes 3 Crossfit 2 Kickboxing 2 More bikes for spin 2 Martial arts, self defense 8 More morning classes, more evening classes, or specific classes at specific times 17 More hours 9 24 hours 4 earlier hours (especially on weekends) 4 better hours during breaks / summer 16 Specific equipment 6 More or better weight machines 4 Fix broken machines 3 More cardio machines 1 More stairmaster machines 1 Group nautical style machines by muscle groups 1 Standing calf rise machine 12 Cleanliness and sanitation More wipes, spray for patrons to clean Equipment is dusty Cleaner showers Signs encouraging cough into shoulder 10 Flexible Rebelcard policy have 2nd way to swipe in (smartphone), able to self swipe 9 Healthier food options (miss the fitness café), list calories 8 Sauna 8 More, better air conditioning, air flow 6 TV better, more channels, on each cardio machine, work 5 Tennis courts (requests for indoor and outdoor) 5 More massage chairs, free massages 5 Nicer / friendlier staff / staff interested in helping / ensure weights reracked, clean 4 More staff to assist, explain how to use machines 4 Boxing gym 4 Beginner orientation / classes (gym intimidating) 4 Bad mitten courts 4 More stretching space 3 More pool classes, lessons 3 Drop in child care 3 Suggestions to reorganize locations of weights, cardio, stretching Campus Recreation Consortium 2013 Survey Key Findings 7

3 More racquetball courts 3 women s gym 2 Find someplace for IM spectators 2 IM refs that know the rules 2 More lockers 2 hiking trips 2 private workout space less visible 3. What like best about the SRWC: 46 Big, open, spacious, with lots of variety, everything in one place 20 Convenience, location on campus, availability 17 Group x classes 17 Pool 13 Cardio 12 Weights 11 Atmosphere, friendly staff 10 Equipment is good, up to date, plenty 8 Hours 8 Gym 8 Track 8 Massage chairs 5 Clean 4 Not crowded 3 Wellness Zone 3 Health center 2 CAPS 2 Towel service Faculty/Staff Comments 1. What like best about the SRWC? 3 Friendly environment 2 Convenience Able to work out during lunch hour Massage chairs Clean, warm pool Oylmpic power lifting Variety of equipment 2. What can improve? 12 More group classes (earlier in the day) o 6 More spin classes and more bikes In the room o 6 More zumba classes (early mornings and at noon) 6 Open earlier in the morning 5am (open pool at 5am) Campus Recreation Consortium 2013 Survey Key Findings 8

2 Open on Sunday mornings 2 Better hours during breaks / not close for holidays 3 Consistently enforce policies (some staff see issue but not address) no weights on track, walk inside lane and run outside lane, not dropping weights 2 Dissatisfaction with certain group fitness instructors Improve lane markings on bottom and walls of lap pool Need more stretching space and place for trainer Rock climbing wall Summer youth camps Faculty intramural programs Outdoor trips besides PEX Dry sauna Wet sauna Long term lockers for faculty/staff NATIONAL BENCHMARKS There were 41 institutions participating in the Recreation NASPA Consortium in Spring 2013; 19 of those were large, 4 year, institutions. Out of 19 large, 4 year, institutions UNLV ranked #1 or #2 on 14 out of 48 questions receiving top ranking on 30 of the questions. Satisfaction ratings exceed peers in 10 out of 38 questions (statistically significant at the.05 level) o UNLV was statistically below our peers on 9 of the satisfaction questions. Exceeded peers in 3 out of 30 learning outcome questions (statistically significant at the.05 level) o UNLV was statistically below our peers on 6 of the outcomes questions, Many of the questions in which UNLV exceeded peers are core to the mission of Campus Recreation Services such as meeting recreational needs, offering something for everyone, and would recommend the SRWC to others. The amount of indoor recreation space, number of cardio, fitness, and free weight equipment, availability of equipment when want to use it, and availability of open recreation and open swim were all top ranked items. It is also important to note UNLV ranked #1 for how important the SRWC facility and CRS programs are to students in deciding to continue at UNLV. UNLV students rated the importance of recreation and fitness prior to attending UNLV statistically below our peers but were consistent with our peers on how important recreation and fitness will be after they leave UNLV demonstrating an impact on students desire for lifelong healthy living. Many of the learning outcomes in which UNLV is statistically below our peers are not outcomes identified by Campus Recreation Services as being a part of the intentional design of CRS programs. Attention should be given to ability to develop friendships. Consideration should be given to staff training as students rated recreation staff as less friendly and less knowledgeable than peers. The number of intramural sports and the number of sport clubs offered were also rated statistically below peers. Campus Recreation Consortium 2013 Survey Key Findings 9

LONGITUDINAL DATA When this survey was first administered in 2010, the SRWC had been open for only three years. Longitudinal data indicates some enthusiasm has waned. In particular, reported participation numbers are lower and satisfaction with the amount of equipment, maintenance of equipment, and cleanliness is lower. The number of intramural sports and the number of sport clubs offered were also rated below 2010. How students rated the variety of fitness classes increased and the importance of SRWC facilities and programs in deciding to attend UNLV increased; this makes sense as a greater percentage of the student body chose to attend UNLV after the facility opened in 2013 than in 2010. ACTION ITEMS Campus Recreation Services staff will focus on the following: Staff training and service orientation Participation levels with a particular focus on intramurals Development and implementation of a comprehensive marketing plan Fitness equipment maintenance and replacement 2013 Compare Group: 1. Bowling Green State University 2. Drexel University 3. Grand Valley State University 4. Iowa State University 5. Northeastern University 6. Northwestern University 7. Sacramento State 8. Saint Louis University 9. Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville 10. Stephen F. Austin State University 11. Stony Brook University 12. Towson University 13. University at Albany 14. University of Akron 15. University of Houston 16. University of Nebraska-Lincoln 17. University of North Dakota 18. Weber State University 19. Western Michigan University Campus Recreation Consortium 2013 Survey Key Findings 10