NARIX by the numbers: Austin 2024
Each NARIX, as the application window closes and acceptance letters go out, we take a moment to analyze the data and reflect on the most recent application window. Our learnings and reflections are published in our “NARIX by the Numbers” blog posts, as a look into what happened and how decisions were made. This post is now our fourth.
For folks who are interested, here are our previous NARIX by the Numbers posts:
When these posts started, they served to explain our waitlist process and provide some visibility into the geographic breakdown of applications. Over time, we added other data points, like demographic data (age, race, gender, etc) and unconference experience/rope roles, so that we could measure the impact of our programs and initiatives.
Today, this post will attempt to explain both the trends we see over time, as well as changes to the application process– including the much-discussed “anti-racism question” that was added for Austin NARIX. As always, we invite your questions and discussion, as we aim to improve NARIX events and the applicant/attendee experience over time. With that, here we go!
Applications at-a-glance
207: The number of applications we received.
As NARIX has continued to grow more popular, we continue to see more applications than ever. Before Austin NARIX, our Montreal event had broken a record with 182 applications– we surpassed that this time around by 25!
65: The number of applications received on Day 1
We saw the most applications on Day 1 and the second biggest number of applications on the last day, with a lull in the middle. This trend looks pretty similar to Montreal, but with a better day 1 turnout– likely because we did a better job of getting the application live earlier in the day, and announcing the application open date on all our social media.
108: The number of spots open for the Austin event.
Our Austin event is about the same size as our Montreal one; we’re expecting just over ~100 attendees on site at the event. That means a long waitlist again for this event. By comparison, our Montreal waitlist was 73 people long.
Applicant demographics
A year ago, we added demographic questions to the application. These questions are optional, and are accompanied by the following text on the form:
“Why collect this information?
NARIX is committed to hosting a diverse, accessible, and equitable event. To help us achieve that goal, please let us know how you identify within any of the following groups. Please answer to your comfort level, all of the following section is optional.
How is this information used?
We collect demographic information to track change over time, and to measure the impact of our outreach programs. We also share out this data with our community (in an anonymized way) via our "NARIX by the Numbers" posts, which can be found on our blog.”
We believe “you can’t improve what you don’t measure”. We’ve used this data to track larger systemic change over time, and also to notice trends in how the data changes as we change where our events are located.
(For example, these charts from the 2020 US census help us analyze what changes in race and ethnicity could be accounted for by geographic changes, rather than organizational trends.)
On Age
By percentage, our age breakout for Austin applications looks pretty similar to Montreal, with more attendees in the “26-40” age group than any other by a wide margin. This time around, we saw fewer applications from folks in the 18-25 and 41-55 ranges, with more applications in the 26-40 and 56+ ranges. As our attendee pool has increased, the raw numbers indicate that we still had more “56+” apply for Austin NARIX than any previous event.
At our most recent Montreal NARIX, the meet-up for older folks in rope resulted in an instagram account dedicated to increasing representation of older folks in rope (shameless plug to follow that account here: https://www.instagram.com/older_people_shibari/).
On Race and Ethnicity
In our most recent application window, we saw an increase in BIPOC applications, with applicants who identify only as white making up ~67% of the pool, compared to 75% at Montreal. In fact, the raw number of applications from white people stayed the same (139 at Montreal NARIX, and 139 again for Austin NARIX), meaning increases in applications from people who identified as Hispanic, Asian, Black, and Indigenous account for all of the increase in overall applications to NARIX.
In the past, we’ve used a pie chart to show the represented groups, where anyone claiming more than one identity would be lumped into “biracial / mixed”. This time, we’re reporting on the number of attendees who claim each racial identity, which allows us to show you how many applicants identify as Black or Asian, even when an applicant answers as both.
On Geographic Breakdown
This NARIX saw our most diverse applicant pool in terms of geographies represented. For the first time ever we had applications from two provinces in Mexico, as well as a record of 28 US states—and despite being much further from Canada, we still saw applications from 4 Canadian Provinces. States like North Dakota, Alaska, and Oklahoma made our map for the first time ever.
(This map does not show Mexico, where we received under 10 applications. We are still looking for a map tool that allows us to visualize all regions effectively.)
As usual, we saw the most applications from the host state, in this case Texas. And states like California, Washington, Illinois and New York continue to send a large number of applications– states with robust rope communities and many NARIX committee members (who tend to talk about the event a lot locally).
On Gender and Sexuality
When it came to gender identity, 35% of applicants identified as trans or gender non-conforming, and 83% identified as LGBTQIA+ in some way.
This is right on trend with our most recent Montreal NARIX, where we saw 39% of applicants identified as trans or gnc, and 81% identified as LGBTQIA+.
On the new question
One big change to the application, which has received much discussion, is the inclusion of an anti racism question. There is another blog post which goes deeper on all of the efforts that NARIX puts towards diversity and inclusion at our events, which we’d recommend reading (linked here). But here we’ll address the question itself, how it was added, and what impact it had on the application process.
Where it came from
Heading into the Montreal event this last summer, we were excited to be implementing new policies to increase diversity at our events, and programs and policies to support the on-site attendee experience. But getting people to your events is not the same as making the event feel welcoming and inclusive. The experience of Black folks at the event was not good, as most of them experienced a number of racist microaggressions thoughout the weekend from other attendees.
We were grateful that they shared their feedback directly with us and invited us to improve. In partnership with some of the folks harmed at Montreal, we determined that a question on the application would be a positive addition to the screening process for attendees. We drafted the question with review and partnership from BIPOC volunteers and community members, with the goal that the question would serve three purposes:
It would signal to attendees that antiracism is a top priority at NARIX, and discourage people from applying who do not support that priority.
It would ask attendees to commit to supporting Black attendees in tangible ways.
It would help us understand where applicants were in their journey, as we expect to be discussing vulnerable topics like race and inclusion at the upcoming event.
The question we ultimately added to the application read as follows:
“NARIX is committed to fostering racially diverse and inclusive events. We believe that true inclusion goes beyond just representation; it involves creating an environment where everyone feels valued, respected, and heard.
What does antiracism mean to you? How will you contribute to ensuring that BIPOC individuals feel genuinely welcome and supported at our event? Your commitment and actions are crucial in creating a space where everyone can thrive.”
How answers were evaluated
We were hoping for answers that did two things: 1) that reflected on antiracism (with appreciation for everyone who answered with some kind of “takes active effort” response), and 2) specific commitments to behaviors at the upcoming event.
We were also looking out for any answers that contained flags or things such as:
Not answering the question at all
Micro-aggressive and aggressive answers
Answers that clearly were inappropriate
Answers we received
As applications came in, we screened each response and sent follow-up emails to folks, providing more context for what we were hoping for and providing another opportunity to answer.
Many responses simply missed the two-part nature of the question– a great indication to us that we made the question too complicated or unclear.
We also saw some applications focused on explaining that diversity was important, in a “I don’t see color” / “just don’t be racist” way, and found this kind of answer to be unproductive and asked for clearer answers to our questions.
Finally, some answers were simply very aggressive in response to dissatisfaction with the question. When we received answers that were aggressive in nature, specifically from white folks, we were concerned that they would also be aggressive to BIPOC or other attendees in person at the event, and so we opted to deny their applications to protect people at the event.
Back to the numbers: 72. The number of people who got a follow-up email specifically related to this question:
27. People who did not reflect on racism/antiracism.
29. People who forgot to answer with specific actions.
16. People who didn’t really answer either part.
The impact it had
Overall, we received thoughtful feedback from both BIPOC and white participants. Some of the feedback centered on the implementation of the question (e.g., the expectation that BIPOC folks also answer the anti-racism question), the evaluation criteria (e.g., unlike our other questions, this one seemed to have a right answer), and the content itself (e.g., white applicants struggled to avoid white-knighting or engaging in symbolic responses, in addition to the challenges of answering two questions in the same section). We also received feedback that our follow-up email lacked gentleness and prioritized process over people.
We value transparency, so it’s important to acknowledge where we fell short. We know we didn’t get this question quite right the first time around, and we are listening carefully to the feedback we’ve received about it. We expect that it will take us several iterations to get it exactly right—we are committed to keeping the question, and we are committed to working on it until it’s right. For context, it took NARIX six iterations to get the accountability question to where it is now.
We also want to share that not a single application came in with hate speech or a dismissal of the importance of diversity efforts at large. And that we also received positive feedback from people who were happy to see the question asked, and felt more safe because of it.
Ultimately, we don't know yet the impact this question will have on the in person experience, and are waiting to learn that part with the rest of you.
On the acceptance process
Once we’d reviewed every application (including answers to the follow-ups), we marked applications as “accepted” or “denied”. Only 17 applications were denied, most due to incomplete applications, or for poor answers to either the harm or antiracism question. Zero BIPOC folks were rejected due to their antiracism answer.
Of our 190 “accepted” applications, we then looked at the demographic data, and automatically accepted applicants who were underrepresented in the rope community and in our applicant pool, as we did at Montreal.
First, we auto-accepted the NARIX staff with guaranteed spots from their work on NARIX committees. This year, we implemented a new policy of limited spots per committee, and so our current cap of NARIX staff is 14 people.These staff members are essential to making sure NARIX runs smoothly, they rotate every event, and work throughout the year to make NARIX happen. That leaves 94 open spots after staff.
Then, we auto-accepted BIPOC folks, and people over 55+. We also auto-accepted applicants applying from areas that had never sent in NARIX applications before: a very small handful of people from Alaska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Mexico. As this event venue is particularly ADA-accessible, we did look to auto-accept anyone with significant mobility impairments. Finally, we spot-checked the application history– anyone who had been waitlisted twice in a row (for LA and Montreal) got bumped to the top of the list.
At the end of all that, there were 33 spots left for the event. That meant that folks who didn’t meet an auto-acceptance criteria went from a 53.4% chance (94 spots across 176 attendees) to a 28.7% chance (33 spots across 115 attendees) of getting in. We used a random number generator for the 115 people left, and assigned the spots based on numeric order. The random numbers were also used to determine the order of the waitlist.
Overall, our policies of auto-acceptance for BIPOC folks and our inclusion of the antiracism question are both changes that are targeted at making NARIX events more diverse, and supporting BIPOC attendees with an on-site experience that is more actively supportive of them. With the RSVPs we’ve received so far, we expect just about ~50% of the event to be BIPOC.
And again, these are not the only things we’re trying, and we will continue to take feedback and make changes as we see what works and what doesn’t both during the application window and at the event itself.
Some other interesting data to share:
On unconference experience, we’re seeing more and more that applicants have been to these kinds of events. That’s great news! And from what we can tell by answers in the application, this results from more small regional unconference events being hosted in local communities throughout the year.
On switching, we had been seeing a downward trend in the number of switches applying from one event to the next– that is NOT true of Austin, where we saw more switches applying than any previous event. (Keep in mind that this is a “select all that apply” type of question, so there were more responses than applicants.)
On scholarships; this time around Austin NARIX was much more expensive than our previous events, which means both more folks in need and also that the impact of our scholarship fund doesn’t stretch as far (more on our thoughts around financial accessibility here). We opted to start by offering half-scholarships instead of full scholarships, to aid financial accessibility for as many people as possible. We initially offered 20 half-scholarships, and still had folks on our waitlist to receive financial aid. As additional donations come in, we’ll increase both the number of half-scholarships, and start offering to change those to full scholarships.
The final numbers
Here’s our usual rapid-fire stats, for the other nerds who love these things:
73: the number of folks who were put on the waitlist (the same as Montreal, actually!)
6: the number of people who dropped out due to the addition of the antiracism question, and how it was handled.
396: the number of emails that went out over the last month related to applications
46: the number of folks who contributed to the scholarship fund
74: the number of attendees who said “Yes!” to volunteering during the event– up over 20+ from the last event!
3,700+: the number of square feet at Sky Candy, the beautiful venue in Austin that is hosting our next event.
And of course, 85. The number of days between now and Austin NARIX, when we open the doors to welcome attendees to another vulnerable, challenging, collaborative, inspiring event.
