PREPARED BY JOSIAH BUCHANAN,

JENN SAINOVSKI, & COLLIN HILL

DECEMBER 2021
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Safe Zone at WCU 4
Methods 5
Results 6-10
Analysis 11-12
Recommendations 13
Limitations 14
Conclusion 14
Apendix 15-24
References 25
 Introduction

Jenn Collin Josiah

Assessment Project The following report introduces Safe Zone at
Our group was tasked with assessing the Safe WCU, our methods, results, analysis,
Zone Program housed within Intercultural limitations, and recommendations moving
Affairs. This is the first time that the program forward with the program. This report will
is being evaluated in over four years. We were be made available for our campus partner,
interested in reaching out to past participants ICA.
to gauge what content learned from Safe ICA Departmental Vision
Zone had been utilized most by participants. "ICA works with all members of the
Below are the questions that guided our University to provide a campus
assessment: environment where students from different
backgrounds and culture groups feel
1. Does Safe Zone provide the necessary appreciated, respected, and valued.
information to create understanding,
Through educational, social, and leadership
awareness, and empathy for the LGBTQ+
programs, ICA promotes inclusive values of
community?
social justice and human dignity while
2. Do participants retain information
preparing students to thrive in a diverse and
learned from Safe Zone? Are they able to
apply it to their daily lives? interconnected world."
Message From the Team
The definition of an assessment that guided The three of us were very grateful to be a
our report is as follows: “Assessment is the part of this project to help improve the Safe
systematic collection, review, and use of
Zone program at WCU. We are all very
information about educational programs
passionate about furthering diversity, equity,
undertaken to improve learning and
and inclusion to help improve the lives of
development” (Banta & Palomba, 2014, p. 1).
LGBTQ+ students on campus.

3
Safe Zone at WCU
The Safe Zone Project is a resource Safe Zone Learning Objectives:
designed to provide opportunities for
After completing Safe Zone training:
individuals to receive training pertaining to
1. Participants will increase their level of
sexuality, gender, and LGBTQ+ identities
familiarity with the lived experience of
and examine prejudice, assumptions, and
LGBTQ+ people.
privilege. Over 25,000 educators have
adapted the trainings in more than 100
2. Participants will increase their level of

countries, including Western Carolina familiarity with LGBTQ+ terminology.

University (WCU) (The Safe Zone Project, 3. Participants will increase their level of
n.d.). WCU adopted the Safe Zone Program familiarity with LGBTQ+ oppression
approximately 15 years ago and has since and the consequences of
trained over 1,000 participants. This training homophobia/ transphobia.
program has been housed in Intercultural 4. Participants will increase their level of
Affairs since its inception. familiarity with the resources available
on campus and in the community for
The Safe Zone Program at WCU is divided LGBTQ+ individuals.
into two parts, each lasting approximately 5. Participants will be prepared to act as
two hours. In Part I, participants are Safe Zone members and allies.
introduced to vocabulary, LGBTQ+ symbols,
and the experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals.
"The mission of the Safe Zone
In Part II, participants can hear from a panel
Program at Western Carolina
of LGBTQ+ identified individuals to hear
University is to provide
personal experiences and ask questions.
After completing both parts, participants
training, support, resources,
sign a contract to designate their
and a network of allies who are
commitment to providing a safe space for committed to enhancing the
LGBTQ+ identified individuals. Additionally, campus and local community’s
ICA offers Continuing Education (CES) understanding of gender and
sessions, including Trans 101, Legal Issues, sexuality. "
and Bi-Plus. CES is only offered to those who (WCU, n.d.)
have completed the Safe Zone training.

4
Methods
The data collected for this assessment report Out of the 450 emails sent, 287 bounced
was based on a mixed-methods approach of back and could not be delivered. Of the
qualitative and quantitative analyses. Five remaining 163 participants, 25 completed
steps were taken to collect data which the survey for a 15% response rate.
helped us evaluate the Safe Zone Program at
WCU. These steps included developing Next, we recruited past participants for a
research questions, designing an assessment focus group. Although we attempted to
instrument, distributing the survey, holding a recruit via email, all participants were
focus group, and analyzing the results. members of the Higher Education Student
Affairs program at WCU. The focus group
The first step in our assessment report was to was held via Zoom on November 19, 2021,
create guiding assessment questions. We from 1-2 pm. The hosts asked the
worked with Dr. Gulley of WCU to brainstorm participants for permission to be video
research questions and assessment recorded, and one of the hosts took notes of
directions. We did not want to the proceedings. The questions asked
overemphasize asking participants how they during the focus group were adapted from
felt about their satisfaction with the training. the previously mentioned survey and can be
Instead, we focused our assessment found in Appendix A. Four participants
questions to understand what knowledge volunteered to partake in the focus group
was learned through the Safe Zone training, varying in age from 23 to 37 years old. Three
what was retained, and how that knowledge participants self-identified as male, and one
was utilized in the participants' daily lives. self-identified as female. The focus group
session was video recorded and coded for
We then created our own assessment tool analysis.
adapted from the pre-existing training
satisfaction survey. Our mixed-methods The final steps in our assessment were to
survey was hosted on Qualtrics and analyze the survey results and examine the
disseminated to past participants via email focus group responses. By analyzing survey
(see Appendix B). We attempted to reach findings and focus group responses, we
450 past participants via email to complete could relate data to our research question
the Safe Zone assessment survey. about using Safe Zone knowledge in daily
lives.

5
 Results
Survey Results
The following charts and graphs show when participants completed Safe Zone,
the modality of the training, their classification, and continuing education
trainings completed.

Faculty
Modality 1 Classification

Staff
In-Person 6 Undergraduate
10

11

Virtual
15

Graduate
7

CES Trainings Completed Semester Training Completed

Trans 101 15
3
Legal Issues
2 10

Bi+
3 5

0
None F19 S20 F20 S21 F21
Note: Total number is
21
greater than 25 as some
individuals participated in
more than one CES

6
 Results
True The information I learned in Safe
Zone prepared me to become
an advocate for the LGBTQ+
community
Somewhat True

The information I learned in Safe

Zone prepared me to tell others
about resources that are available
Neutral
at WCU and surrounding areas

The information I learned in Safe

Somewhat False Zone allowed me to understand
the lived-experiences of LGBTQ+
individuals

False

0 5 10 15

When asked if the information participants learned in Safe Zone prepared them to become an
advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, most participants felt this statement was true or
somewhat true. One participant responded, "I learned a lot about confronting others who are
speaking false information, and I think that is what I have used the most."

Additionally, most participants felt that it was true or somewhat true that the Safe Zone
training prepared them to tell others about resources available at WCU and the surrounding
areas. To justify this response, a participant remarked that the training helped them to be able
to "find resources for those in crisis." Another participant noted that the most beneficial
information they learned from the training was "learning more about WCU and resources
available."

Similarly, all but 9 respondents felt the information they learned in Safe Zone helped them
understand the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals. One participant said, "I really
appreciated the panel featuring a trans man where he spoke about his transition experience
and also coming to terms with his identity."

7
Results

I would recommend the

Agree Safe Zone program to
other campus or
community members.

I am satisfied with the

Neutral content of the Safe Zone
program.

I am satisfied with the

structure of the Safe Zone
Disagree
program.

0 5 10 15 20

When asked if the participants would recommend the Safe Zone program, all but 5
respondents agreed they would recommend the training to other campus or
community members. This distribution was the same for participants who were
satisfied with the content of the Safe Zone program.

Participants who were satisfied with the content of the program most frequently
cited terminology and vocabulary as the most valuable takeaways from the program.
Even those participants who were less satisfied with the content and the structure of
the Safe Zone program were still likely to recommend the training to others.
Participants who had taken a CES were more likely to be satisfied with the content
and structure of Safe Zone and recommend the training.

Additionally, 4 respondents wrote they would change nothing about the program.
Finally, 18 participants agreed that they were satisfied with the structure of the Safe
Zone program, while 4 were neutral.

8
Results
We also asked participants a few short answer questions about the Safe Zone learning
outcomes, including what information they found most beneficial, what information
they have implemented in daily life, and what aspects they might change about Safe
Zone. A sample of quotes from these short answer questions are compiled below.

"ways in which we can work to diminish oppression on campus." What information

that you learned
"learning more about the culture at WCU"
from the Safe Zone
"right to work laws and some of the other legal discrimination training has been
that LGBTQ people must face" most beneficial?

How have you "helped me be more cognizant and respectful of various identities
implemented that may be similar or different to my own"
information from "add my pronouns to written communication and Zoom"
Safe Zone
in your daily life? "being more visible and vocal with my support"

"more courses to further my education on the topic" What, if anything,

"making them available more often" would you change
about the Safe Zone
"there were some areas that were rushed over because the students
knew more than I did and I wanted to understand more" Program?

Although feedback was overwhelmingly positive, a few participant comments can be

considered for improving the program. First, 2 individuals commented that they were
not satisfied with the student panel activity in Part II of Safe Zone. One participant
called it "voyeuristic," and another one said, "it made me feel uncomfortable." Another
participant remarked that some of the scenarios in the training were triggering,
stating they were "left having to deal with these experiences as straight people
talked about them as if they were hypotheticals, with no support to anyone who may
have been feeling the same."

9
Results
Focus Group Results
Our focus group was guided by six participants suggested spending more
questions, found in Appendix A. One time on allyship, rather than history, as a
member of our team led the focus group possible way to provide the knowledge they
while another observed and took notes, could use in their daily lives. Something
found in Appendix D. participants indicated as being helpful in
their daily lives was practicing using
The focus group elicited various essential
neopronouns out loud as a group.
findings and trends from the Safe Zone
Additionally, when the focus group
trainings. Participants agreed that the
participants were asked if they were
training provided in-depth information
satisfied with the current structure of Safe
about different identities, information about
Zone, a few commented that it could be
landmark events, and historical information
condensed, with an option for
about the LGBTQ+ community. Three of the
asynchronous training. They believed a
four participants commented that the
shorter training would enable individuals
training provided insight into their self-
with busy schedules to be able to
discovery and identity search. A participant
participate in the baseline training.
mentioned, "An exercise during the training
that required matching definitions to terms A further suggestion for the Safe Zone
helped me learn new words of the LGBTQ+ Program was to offer varied training
community." The training also helped two curriculums for distinct groups of people.
of the four participants who did not identify For example, providing sessions specifically
as queer to become a stronger ally of the for people with queer identities. This
LGBTQ+ community by increasing specific suggestion might help create more
knowledge they could implement in their targeted curriculum objectives and provide
daily lives. more insight into allyship based on identity.
Finally, some focus group participants felt
pressured to attend the Safe Zone training.
Members of the focus group also identified
One mentioned that “It is important to
areas of improvement for the Safe Zone
become an ally for personal development
Program. Participants commented that
and making his students feel safe”.
they wanted the training to emphasize
However, he felt he “wasn’t a good
more in-depth content, rather than
practitioner if he didn’t go”.
"baseline information," which they identified
as "history of the LGBTQ+ community." The

10
Analysis
Survey
Many participants have utilized what they
When analyzing the data collected from
have learned in the training in their daily
both the survey and the focus group, we can
lives and helped create a more safe and
see the benefits for those who have
inclusive community at WCU. An
participated in Safe Zone. Utilizing this data,
overwhelming majority of the participants
we can gain further clarity into the benefits
felt that the training provided them with the
and limitations of the Safe Zone program
necessary tools to become an advocate for
and how it impacts those who have
the LGBTQ+ community.
participated.
Our survey provided great feedback for The vast majority of participants also agreed

what participants retain from Safe Zone and that the resources given during the training

how participants are using information they were invaluable. These resources are all

learned in Safe Zone in their daily lives. The accessible on the Safe Zone website, so

majority of respondents felt like they participants can often reference them after

learned something that they retained and their training has concluded (WCU, n.d.).

can use. A few of the respondents noted

These results give us an answer to the
they had become more visible in displaying
question of whether Safe Zone is an
their support for the LGBTQ+ community
effective tool to create awareness,
like placing their Safe Zone sticker on their
understanding, and empathy for the
door, using pride pins on their backpacks or
LGBTQ+ community. Participants can clearly
clothing, and displaying flags. Others felt like
cite examples of using knowledge from Safe
they had a better grasp of vocabulary
Zone in their daily lives and demonstrate
pertaining to the LGBTQ+ community and
ways their understanding has increased.
were able to use those terms properly, and
correct those who were not. A couple of
Overall, our results demonstrate that Safe
participants said their biggest takeaway was
Zone is a practical resource for those who go
to be more mindful and generally more kind
through the training. It provides members
towards all individuals. Participants also felt
of the WCU community with resources, and
like they did not have to know everything
knowledgeable people they can turn to that
and could make mistakes while learning. A
can help them in various situations relating
small number of participants felt that they
to the LGBTQ+ community.
did not learn anything new from the
training that is useful in their daily lives, one
of which self-identified as a member of the
LGBTQ+ community.

11
Analysis
Focus Group
Conducting a focus group allowed us to
understand how some participants felt
about the Safe Zone program and how
they have utilized it in their time after
completion. Like our survey results, the
participants in the focus group also
shared many positive insights about the
training and felt it was advantageous in
their daily lives. They learned many
LGBTQ+ terms and definitions and gained
a more thorough understanding of how
identities form and develop. Some of the
participants also shared that they could
also take time to reflect on their own
identities during the training. Safe Zone is
an excellent tool for being an outward ally
for those in our community and better
understanding oneself.
The participants also gave some helpful
feedback on how the training could be
improved in the future.
Their critiques primarily focused on how
the training could be modified to fit
people's busy schedules and those who
may be coming in with more context
than others. Utilizing the vast resources
on the Safe Zone website, including the
Gender Unicorn and the LGBTQ+
Umbrella, for some to partake in the self-
study could be a good option for those
who may not have a 2-hour time
commitment for each session (WCU,
n.d.).
Most of our assessment participants have
stated that safe Zone is an incredibly
beneficial program. Critically analyzing
these results has allowed us to identify
some positive themes for those who have
completed the training and some areas
in need of improvement for how Safe
Zone can be taught in the future.
12
Recommendations
Program Recommendations
We recommend the following based on our Fifth, we suggest creating a module or self-
assessment findings and analysis. First, guided curriculum where participants could
incorporate more WCU specific content in spend more time with materials covered,
Safe Zone. Past participants were ask questions, and learn from peers via
interested in hearing more about the message boards.
experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals on
WCU’s campus and learn more about WCU Assessment Recommendations
resources. Second, provide content or Moving forward with the assessment cycle,
trigger warnings for certain materials we recommend that alternative email
discussed and direct participants to mental addresses are collected from those who
health resources as needed. Some receive the Safe Zone certification. This
respondents felt like they were left without contact information would allow ICA to
support after discussing difficult content. reach out to participants who may have
These respondents also were interested in graduated or moved on to a different
a Safe Zone training tailored specifically institution. This information can be
towards those with LGBTQ+ identities. collected from the registration form as well
Third, we suggest expanding the CES as permission to contact participants in the
offerings as many participants wanted to future. We suggest the Past Participant
attend more trainings and learn more Assessment to be sent out to individuals six
about LGBTQ+ communities. Fourth, we months to one year after completion of the
recommend incorporating the lived program. Consistently sending out this
experience of LGBTQ+ individuals in a survey will allow ICA to perform benchmark
variety of ways, and potentially revising the assessments and continuously improve the
panel to be more scripted. This would still Safe Zone program offerings. Additionally,
allow individuals to share their lived we suggest the immediate assessment
experience, but it might mitigate some of instrument to be revised to include more
the discomfort from inappropriate short answer questions to increase
questioning. qualitative data.

13
Limitations Conclusion
There were a few limitations to the The Safe Zone program at WCU is a wonderful
assessment of the Safe Zone program at tool for increasing awareness about LGBTQ+
WCU. First, we aimed to collect information individuals and communities. Our team
from past participants, but many were worked with ICA to assess the training,
unreachable via the email address they used looking specifically at the retention and use of
to register for the program. Therefore, many information learned during Safe Zone. Using a
of the responses we received on our survey mixed-methods survey and a focus group, we
were from more recent participants, with the gathered data from past participants to see
majority of respondents from Fall 2021. what their main takeaways from the training
Second, our focus group consisted exclusively were and how they are using them in their
of members of the Higher Education Student daily lives. Results showed participants felt
Affairs graduate program, limiting feedback overwhelmingly prepared to become an ally
and experiences from individuals in the to the LGBTQ+ community, recall resources,
broader WCU community. Students from this and have a knowledge of the lived
program have personal relationships with the experiences of LGBTQ+ people.
assessment team, affecting unbiased
reporting. Last, participants were given two Based on these findings, we gave ICA five
weeks to complete the survey, limiting time recommendations moving forward with the
for responses and potentially contributing to Safe Zone program. We also provided
our response rate. guidance on the assessment of the program
moving forward. Overall, our team was very
Prior to this semester, very little assessment
happy to work with both ICA in an effort to
had been conducted for the Safe Zone
revitalize assessment of the Safe Zone
program at WCU, leaving few areas for
program.
benchmark assessment. Additionally, Safe
Zone is an international program, so specific
structures, activities, and materials were not
explicitly developed for WCU, making it
challenging to create specific campus
content. When considering our guiding
assessment questions, it is hard to separate
what knowledge participants explicitly gained
from Safe Zone training and which was
acquired outside of the training.

14
Appendix
Appendix A

SafeZone Assessment Focus Group Questions

1. What information that you learned from the Safe Zone training has

been most beneficial? 
2. How have you implemented information from Safe Zone in daily life? 
3. What, if anything, would you change about the Safe Zone program? 
4. Are there any topics or concentrations that you would like Safe
Zone trainers to emphasize in future trainings? Which ones and why?  
5. Why do you believe Safe Zone trainings are important? 
6. Final thoughts? 

15
Appendix
Appendix B
Original Safe Zone Assessment Instrument

16
Appendix
Appendix B

17
Appendix
Appendix C
Revised Safe Zone Assessment Instrument

18
Appendix
Appendix C

19
Appendix
Appendix D
Focus Group Notes

1. What information that you learned from the Safe Zone training has
been most beneficial?

Jacob: Biggest thing got out of it is education about different identities. Q&A asked how, as
a staff member how he can support them. He used this in the summer when students
came out to him and utilized training to better support students and may have been a bit
lost without the training.

Alex: Had different panelists. Shared great information, but the speaker did not share
deeper information or multiplicity of experiences because of personal characteristics. In a
position where they represented a more extensive group, it made it challenging to get
deeper information—wondered why they discussed the meaning of the flag so much but
after reflection realized the meaning of the flag and what it means to be an ally.

Dylynne: Agreed with matching exercise. Clarifying. The panel was the most interesting
aspect with trans man and partner. Experience with transition talking to family friends and
their response. How their relationship came to be and what it is like. How it affects
relationships and how he lives his life.

Thom: Exercise during the training to match definitions to terms to help get a sense of
identity terms of the LGBTQ community. Helped make sense of all of them.

2. How have you implemented information from Safe Zone in daily life?

Jacob: Going through a phase of self-discovery and helped validate their sexuality. Helped
him identify where he was coming from and learned from the phases of coming out.
Helped us both a staff member and own personal development as a person.

20
Appendix
Appendix D
Adam: He does not have the experience of being queer but developing an identity as an
ally. Helped him approach professional and personal life and support students and people
in the community.

Dana: Went into it to be safe zone certified but knew much information already. Helped
with working with RA's and students talking with students about identities and what they
were comfortable sharing about their experiences. Help come to terms with own identity.
They helped become a safe space for students frequently with support strategies. The
questioning moment for oneself and figuring out where they fall on the spectrum. Helpful
for self-development.

Tyler: Came in with knowledge. Over the summer doing Catamount Gap, connecting and
working with younger students who are just coming out and learning who they are, and
talking about their concerns coming into college. How to approach them, come to terms
with identities, and be comfortable with other identities. Coming in with understanding his
experiences are not the same as others so having an open mind

3. What, if anything, would you change about the Safe Zone program?

Josh: Disagrees with Adam. Not much of a history person and felt that they went into
history a lot. Talked about landmarks. Maybe I did it a bit too much. I did not feel it was
beneficial. Baseline information may be better researched on its own. Time may be spent
elsewhere. Likes the idea of a hybrid model, not all online. Opportunity to do part 1 in person
so that those with less knowledge do not breeze through the training and not get much
out of it. It does not allow for questions as much and could potentially swamp ICA with
clarification questions that could be asked in an in-person session—putting people
automatically in a Canvas module for people to take if they want so that it is there.

21
Appendix
Appendix D

Adam: Agrees with Tyler. I wished the training went more into allyship. Does the ask a gay
question do anything for him? I already knew a lot of the things were happening. I wanted to
hear more about national cases and the history of how we got here vs. individuals from the
community on their own experiences, specifically here at WCU—providing access to other
trainings offered on campus on diverse populations. Suitable for providing many resources in
a condensed space.

Dana: Share specific events and such briefly and then encourage them to find that
information independently. Going into it with much knowledge made it repetitive and could
be condensed for those with a lot of base knowledge. Maybe do a one-session training for
those who do not feel like they need everything as the 2-hour sessions were a commitment for
those already busy—focusing more on talking with people through their identities and how to
support that person through that process. Maybe having the asynchronous model as an
option could be suitable for those with an already clear idea of topics.
Canvas idea may open up the campus to a political backlash, so that is something to consider
when deciding these things.

Tyler: Having different forms of training for those who identify as queer and those who do not.
It could be helpful to differentiate. I already experienced many of these things in my daily life,
so going through it again was slightly difficult—one for queer people and one for allies. Part 1
could be an online canvas training and then part 2 in person to come in with concepts and
allow for deeper conversations because people will already have that knowledge and save
time. Do not have to revisit information—role-playing activity.

22
Appendix
Appendix D

4. Are there any topics or concentrations that you would

like Safe Zone trainers to emphasize in future trainings? Which ones and why?

Josh: Have different trainings for different types of people. Safe zone for students and then
safe zone for campus employees. Maybe allow deeper dives into supporting peers and
friends vs. supporting students for employees. It could allow for more beneficial discussions.

Dana: I cannot think of anything and did a good job of focusing on identities and explaining
ideas that people needed to know. Knows there are more sessions that people can attend. I
do not remember how much they talked about poly identities—giving baseline knowledge
of each identity.

Tyler: Touched on everything but did not provide a deep understanding. Provide links and
resources to pursue more profound knowledge of different subjects they may be interested
in.

5. Why do you believe SafeZone trainings are important?

Josh: Be able to advocate and relate to students with various identities. Important to
become an ally and personal development. Felt he was not a good practitioner if he did not
go. The very small reason that he went but still feels it is important so worried there may be
pressure for those who are morally against the community may feel pressure to attend just
to fit in.

23
Appendix
Appendix D
Adam: Felt this training helped positively reinforce the dialogue on campus around the
topic. Learned more skills and tenants of allyship.

Dana: Even as someone coming into their own identity still struggles but wants to be a
better support system for colleagues and practical ideas for how to help them. Putting on
supportive programs and teaching others about the identities and become a better peer
support for students. Gives strategies and skills

Tyler: Awareness and knowledge are what is needed for change. Different policies and
issues on campus allow more people to be aware so that change can happen with more
advocates on campus and bring awareness. Pushes a positive change for students on
campus.

6. Final thoughts?

Adam: Might have gotten more out of the program if one of the instructors had not also
been his professors in class.

Dana: Practicing neo-pronouns. Important that the primary facilitator be a part of the
community.

24
References
Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2014). Assessment essentials: Planning,
implementing, and improving assessment in higher education.
John Wiley & Sons.

Safe Zone Project. (n.d). About. Retrieved from

https://thesafezoneproject.com/about/

Western Carolina University. (n.d.) Intercultural Affairs.

Retrieved from https://www.wcu.edu/experience/intercultural-
affairs/index.aspx

Western Carolina University. (n.d) Safe Zone. Retrieved from

https://www.wcu.edu/experience/intercultural-affairs/safe-
zone.aspx

25