Page 1 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation INTERNAL PROGRAM EVALUATION
(Section 46a-68-47)
January 2015
This section of the 2013 Plan was found to be in compliance. Subsection (a)
The University of Connecticut’s internal program evaluation mechanisms continually monitor progress and identify shortcomings in the University’s affirmative action program. The President (the appointing authority), the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs (Provost), and the Associate Vice President of the Office of Diversity and Equity (the institution’s Affirmative Action Officer) provide written input as an essential part of this evaluation procedure.
During this Plan year, President Susan Herbst was the appointing authority for the University. Provost Mun Choi was the chief academic officer for the University. Throughout the 2014 Plan year, Elizabeth Conklin held the position of Associate Vice President of the Office of Diversity and Equity and was designated the Affirmative Action Officer for the University.
As an integral part of the evaluation effort, the University considers the following: (1) Ongoing review and evaluation of the Affirmative Action Plan;
(2) Updating diversity goals and objectives to meet the agency’s changing employment situation;
(3) Establishing a system for evaluating an executive, manager, or supervisor’s performance on affirmative action consistent with Chapters 67 and 68 of the Connecticut General Statutes;
(4) Developing a reporting system to monitor diversity and affirmative action progress and maintaining written progress reports;
(5) Assessing the effectiveness and results of the Affirmative Action Plan and its implementation; and
(6) Establishing and maintaining enforcement mechanisms.
Subsection (b)
The following summarizes the University’s internal evaluation process and the results for this Plan period. The Office of Diversity and Equity retains all documentation in its files,
Page 2 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation
which are available for examination by the Commission. Results of internal reviews and audits are included as part of the narrative sections describing each technique.
Certain aspects of the review process are integral to successful implementation and assessment of affirmative action principles. While methods vary from unit to unit, senior leaders continue to: 1) communicate clear goals for hiring; 2) hold those with hiring authority accountable for meeting goals or submitting proof of good faith efforts to meet hiring goals; 3) offer incentives for behavior that supports goals, and impose consequences for activities that are incompatible with these goals; and 4) require some form of self-reporting at the departmental level. The University’s diversity training programs, sexual harassment prevention workshops, and search committee orientations are designed to positively impact hiring and management practices, complaint activity, and the work environment.
(1) Ongoing review and evaluation of the Affirmative Action Plan.
The President and Provost personally review and discuss the Executive Summary
(ATTACHMENT A)with Associate Vice President Conklin. The Executive Summary provides a quantitative representation of the workforce; new hires and promotions discussed in the Goals Analysis section; goal achievement; and a discussion of program goals and affirmative action efforts. President Herbst and Provost Choi consistently request information regarding those hiring departments that show improvement, and takes note of those that are succeeding and those that appear to be stagnant. Further discussions concern grievance procedures and discrimination complaints, contract compliance, organizational structure and staffing needs, and various programs and projects relevant to the affirmative action program.
The President’s Chief of Staff receives briefings every three weeks on all complaints investigated and/or adjudicated by the Case Management Team of the Office of Diversity and Equity. The President and Provost are notified of all decisions
regarding complaints and receive copies of all Finding and Recommendations. These regular meetings routinely include discussions of trends with respect to both hiring and discrimination complaint activity.
The 2014 Plan year included a schedule of formal and informal meetings in both group and one-on-one settings, and additional written and verbal communications between the Associate Vice President of the Office of Diversity and Equity
(Affirmative Action Officer for the University) and the Office of the President and other University officials including the Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Vice Provost for Diversity, the University Senate, and the Council of Deans. The Vice Provost for Diversity was instrumental in formal and informal meetings regarding the University’s Affirmative Action programs and various other communication regarding affirmative action and diversity efforts. The President and the Associate Vice President for the Office of Diversity and Equity review the Plan prior to its submission to the Commission on Human Rights and
Page 3 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation
Opportunities (CHRO). Additionally, ODE submits periodic updates regarding progress on various elements of the Plan, including goal achievement, to the President, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and other senior executives.
All employee groups are free to comment on any aspect of the Plan or program, according to their interests. ODE requests that comments and inquiries regarding the
Plan be submitted no later than September 30th of each year so that these matters can be referenced in the respective year’s Plan, as noted in the Policy Statement, Internal Communications, and External Communications sections of this Plan.
After completing the Plan according to CHRO standards, ODE conducts
microanalyses to identify broader observations and patterns. ODE regularly performs in-depth reviews of the search and hiring system, and conducts other large-scale studies of systemic components of the program.
(2) Updating diversity goals and objectives to meet the agency’s changing employment situation.
President Herbst reiterated the University’s continued commitment to the principles of Affirmative Action in her 2014 statement:
“The University of Connecticut continues its steadfast commitment to affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, inclusion and diversity. Our ongoing efforts to advance these principles in all aspects of the recruitment and
employment process are detailed in the 2014 Affirmative Action Plan. The Plan
also provides a comprehensive account of UConn’s major initiatives designed to promote an inclusive and discrimination-free workplace environment that values diversity and inclusion.
I recognize that the goals set forth in this Plan go beyond compliance with state laws. Indeed they are essential to advancing the priorities of University leadership. As a world-class research university, these goals are infused into all aspects of strategic planning. I am committed to our continual efforts to implement
successful diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at UConn. I look forward to achieving our affirmative action goals in the coming year as a multicultural
workplace that recognizes and embraces the unique talents and contributions of our diverse workforce.” ATTACHMENT B
Associate Vice President and Affirmative Action Officer, Elizabeth Conklin expressed the same in her statement regarding the Plan:
“The University of Connecticut’s 2014 Affirmative Action Plan for Employment demonstrates our continued commitment to advance the principles of affirmative action, equal employment opportunity and diversity on campus. As an institution, we continue to make every good faith effort to recruit, hire, and retain a workforce
Page 4 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation
representative of the relevant labor market areas. As this and past Plans reflect, the University employs a highly strategic approach to prevent and combat
discrimination, and to advance all good faith efforts to attain goals and achieve equal employment opportunity. University leaders at the highest levels, including President Susan Herbst and Provost Mun Choi, are dedicated to the goals of affirmative action and equal employment, a commitment demonstrated by our intensive recruitment practices and efforts to foster an inclusive working environment free from discrimination and harassment.
In the 2014 Plan year, the University continued to advance initiatives to increase accountability for senior leaders as they work towards equal employment
opportunity in their respective units. The Office of Diversity and Equity, in close partnership with the University’s senior leadership, expanded the dissemination of faculty and staff workforce profiles, historical hiring patterns, and applicant pool demographics to the University community. These detailed assessments have continued to enable ODE to assist senior leaders and search committees in
implementing more proactive and aggressive recruitment strategies. I look forward to continuing this work in the 2015 Plan year, including strengthening our good faith efforts to hire and retain a diverse workforce. We continue to strive toward building a workforce free from discrimination and fostering diversity and inclusion in all aspects of the University workforce and workforce experience. “
In the 2014 Plan year, the University advanced initiatives to increase accountability for senior leaders as they work towards equal employment
opportunity in their respective units. The Office of Diversity and Equity (ODE), in close partnership with the University’s senior leadership, expanded the
dissemination of faculty and staff workforce profiles, historical hiring patterns, and applicant pool demographics to the University community. These detailed
assessments have enabled ODE to assist senior leaders and search committees in implementing more proactive and aggressive recruitment strategies. I look forward to continuing this work in the 2015 Plan year, including strengthening our good faith efforts to hire and retain a diverse workforce. We continue to strive toward building a workforce free from discrimination and fostering diversity and inclusion in all aspects of the University workforce and workforce experience.”
ATTACHMENT C
Formal hiring, promotion and program goals, either numerical or task-oriented, are updated when the Plan is prepared for annual submission to the Commission. The University has embedded issues of goal achievement into its newly drafted Academic Vision Plan, continuing on the goals from the Academic Plan 2009-2014. Strategies for improving recruitment and retention of faculty and staff from
underrepresented groups, institution-wide training in best practices for recruiting underrepresented faculty and staff, as an element of the search process; and enhancing design and delivery of programs that aim to eliminate harassing and discriminatory behavior are key elements of meeting the goals of the Academic Plan.
Page 5 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation ATTACHMENT B and C, Assignment of Responsibility.
Continuing the proactive and effective recruitment strategy implemented in the 2013
Plan year, all faculty and staff searches were advertised with the New England Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (HERC), Diverse Issues in Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed. It is the goal of these advertising efforts to target underrepresented and potentially untapped applicant pools, as well as promote the University’s reputation as both a local and national employer, thereby increasing the total pool candidates from underrepresented backgrounds.
The Office of the Vice Provost for Diversity in collaboration with the Office of Diversity & Equity and the Department of Human Resources (DHR), worked with search committees prior to moving forward with searches to develop recruitment strategies targeting toward increasing demographic profile of goal candidates in applicant pools. Vigorous review and enhanced efforts in identifying nontraditional sources such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and
race/gender specific associations were implemented. This enhanced oversight resulted in a notable increase in unique recruitment sources utilized from 672 to 875. (3) Systematically evaluating an executive, manager, or supervisor’s performance
on diversity and affirmative action.
University executives are accountable for achieving goals and/or demonstrating good faith efforts in support of the University’s affirmative action program. During the 2013 Plan year, senior leaders were applauded for their achievements in advancing diversity by recognition from ODE, the Provost, and the President. Conversely, when there was evidence that their respective units had fallen short in an area related to affirmative action or diversity, senior leaders were held accountable for addressing and improving their units’ performance in this area.
President Herbst clearly communicated affirmative action responsibilities to her direct reports. She stressed, in individual as well as group meetings, that
affirmative action is at the core of management responsibilities, part of the fabric of direct reports’ assignments, and not something to be treated casually or as an afterthought. ODE supported this effort by providing search committee trainings and speaking at events campus wide.
At regular meetings of the leadership team, President Herbst frequently required direct reports to summarize their respective divisions’ progress on affirmative action and diversity goals. These meetings were in addition to the regular meetings between the President’s Chief of Staff and the University’s Affirmative Action Officer
regarding administration of the affirmative action function, and progress and challenges in meeting affirmative action goals, initiatives, and discrimination complaint matters.
Page 6 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation
monitor progress, and set the tone and direction for their respective academic divisions and units. During the 2014 Plan year, the Provost continued to hold the Deans (his direct reports) accountable for progress and achievements relative to affirmative action, compliance, and diversity. As in past years, the Provost embedded diversity into the performance evaluations of his direct reports and mandated that Deans take a more proactive approach to increase hires into populations under-represented in their respective units. Leaders of academic departments (hiring managers), in turn, were instructed to monitor the hiring process within their own units, and certify that appropriate EEO/AA standards had been applied throughout the hiring process. In a statement to Deans, department heads, and search chairs, the Provost stated:
“The University of Connecticut is committed to enhance our efforts to recruit and retain the most competitive and diverse faculty and staff. We need to reinforce our institutional commitment and personal ownership at the individual level, recognizing that we can all contribute to the mission of diversity at our university. This effort will involve an on-going process of implementing new programs as well as critical
evaluation of outcomes.”
Associate Vice President Conklin presented at several Council of Deans and
Department Head meetings during the Plan year to support and advance these hiring initiatives and held regular meetings throughout the Plan year with the Provost and his staff regarding aggressively advancing affirmative action particularly in the context of the recruitment and hiring process. Specific meetings attended by the Associate Vice President Conklin included a meeting on October 1, 2013 with the Regional Campus Directors to discuss initiatives on their respective campuses; an update meeting with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Executive Community on December 13, 2013; and meetings with the Senate Diversity Committee on October 17, 2013, February 6, 2014, May 5, 2014, and September 8, 2014.
During the 2014 Plan year, the Office of Diversity and Equity continued to assume the role of informing senior leadership of workforce statistics and trends. On October 1, 2013, Associate Vice President Conklin presented a detailed analysis of the faculty workforce of the various schools and colleges to the Council of Deans. The current
Faculty Workforce and Hiring Diversity Data Report focused on the total faculty workforce, new faculty hires, and applicants for faculty positions in 2013. The data also summarized the current faculty race and gender profile of the entire University and of each individual School and College. It presented data specific to applicant pools and hiring activity, including – by race and gender – data about candidates who withdrew from searches and candidates who declined offers. Faculty and applicant data was presented in both individual and comparative formats.
In her October 25, 2013 e-mail regarding the availability and dissemination of the report, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Sally Reis reminded department heads:
Page 7 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation
“The report, attached to this email and also available on ODE’s website,
was prepared by ODE to support the University’s continuing efforts to achieve its affirmative action and diversity hiring goals at the Storrs and Regional campuses. The report also provides an update to data presented in the 2012 Faculty and Student Diversity binder. . . . We encourage each Department Head to review and analyze this data carefully as we continue to work to meaningfully diversify our faculty. As you know, the President and Provost are committed to achieving a diverse faculty and staff and encourage you to be active in your recruitment and retention.”
In addition to the updated faculty workforce report, ODE expanded its portfolio of statistical analysis to include staff. The Staff Workforce and Hiring Diversity Data Report provided a comprehensive demographic examination of the workforce as of February 2014, including hires made in the preceding twelve months and an update for University wide figures as of August 2014. This report included both statistical and graphical representations of the staff workforce by each Executive level and Unit as defined in the University Master Unit Department (MUD) Table. Additionally, the report provided an analysis of titles by classification, five and ten year hiring trends by Unit and an analysis of applicant rankings by individual race/gender categories. Additionally, with the culmination of the academic hiring cycle in August 2014, ODE produced the annual update to the Faculty Workforce and Hiring Diversity Data Report. As in previous reports, faculty workforce, new hires and applicant data was presented both statistically and graphically by race and gender. Data for individual schools and colleges and comparisons to 2013 workforce profiles was included. On September 2, 2014, Associate Vice President Conklin presented a focused analysis of the data in both reports to the Council of Deans. The reports were distributed and made available on the ODE website for further dissemination. On September 8, Associate Vice President Conklin presented an analysis of the reports as part of the Annual Report on Diversity to the University Senate.
Following the presentations and review of the reports, the Provost announced the development of the Diversity Task Force to develop creative strategies for broadening and strengthening diversity at the University. The task force was Co-chaired by the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs & Diversity and the Vice Provost for Global Affairs with members representing ODE, faculty, staff, students, the Board of Trustees, the Office of Institutional Research & Evaluation, and the Schools and Colleges.
As described above, executives and managers have continued to utilize a mixture of the following techniques in reviewing their managers and supervisors: staff and individual meetings; periodic memoranda; information gathered during the search process; reports generated by ODE and within their units; monitoring of
discrimination and sexual harassment complaints; monitoring of job descriptions within their responsibility; and consultations with hiring departments during searches. Also, please refer to items (4) and (6) below for additional information about the
Page 8 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation
types of materials used for evaluating executive and managerial performance. All of the above activities and mechanisms demonstrate strong commitment to affirmative action and diversity, and reaffirm the expectation that senior managers will be evaluated and held responsible for progressing in this area.
(4) Reporting systems for monitoring affirmative action progress and maintaining written progress reports.
Several mechanisms were in place during this reporting period. For example:
(a) Classified and unclassified search review system. In this Plan year, the Office of Diversity & Equity (ODE) in collaboration with the Department of Human Resources (DHR) developed a process for ODE review and approval of classified searches to replicate the process in place for unclassified searches. The search procedures include a requirement that each hiring department leader certify to ODE that each search meets good faith, affirmative action, and diversity
standards. All searches undergo an in-depth review prior to interview and hire of applicants. Hiring departments are required to submit information regarding recruitment, qualifications, and applicant evaluation to ODE prior to interviewing and hiring applicants using the on-line application system, Recruiting Solutions,. This system includes many features such as the ability to identify search
committee members, search and organize applicant records, track communication with applicants, and compile aggregate applicant pool data. Additionally,
Recruiting Solutions provides ODE a portal to view data and documentation for an affirmative action review and to intervene in a search that is deficient. Search files maintained in Recruiting Solutions are the official search record for the University and contain all detailed information regarding the hiring process.
(b) Reviews of goal achievement and changing workforce demographics. The Associate Vice President for the Office of Diversity and Equity has continued to review goal achievement on a regular basis, and to present verbal or written reports to the President and Provost. Additional reports are provided to senior staff as concerns arise. Data is presented for the period with a year-to-date summary by division, unit, or department and may include observations of a non-statistical nature. For example, the hire of a minority candidate may not satisfy a hiring goal for the specific payroll title but is a “diversity success” for a
department.
(c) Strategic plans and annual reports. The Board of Trustees continues to require regular reports of progress relative to diversifying faculty and staff at the University.
(d) The University Senate Diversity Committee. This committee is charged with reviewing University policies, practices, and conditions relevant to supporting and promoting diversity among students, faculty, and staff. The committee met 6
Page 9 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation
times during the academic year, approved numerous action items and received updates from several guests on issues affecting faculty and staff. Associate Vice President Conklin addressed the committee during this Plan year, providing updates on affirmative action, faculty and staff workforce and hiring data, diversity programs and initiatives.
(e) The Diversity Strategic Planning Committee. During this Plan year, this committee continued to work toward its goal to establish a new strategic plan, and provide a visionary set of goals and objectives for the Vice Provost for Diversity Office and, in turn, the University. To accomplish its charge to develop bold ideas and approaches to advance efforts to recruit, retain, and ensure equity of faculty, staff, and students, committee members met with a broad cross section of University constituents to identify and strategize solutions for concerns related to diversity on campus. Specifically, the
Diversity Strategic Planning Committee has met with representatives from the various collective bargaining units, University cultural centers, and faculty and staff associations. Additionally, the Diversity Strategic Planning Committee held a University-wide town hall on October 30, 2013 to review the objectives of the committee and solicit feedback from the broader University community. This town hall was attended by the Provost, as well as representatives from the Office of Diversity and Equity and University cultural centers.
(f) The Diversity Task Force. In September 2014, the Provost formed a Diversity Task Force charged to review, assess and recommend strategies to improve diversity at the University. This group, comprised of a diverse cross-section of the University community, began to systematically examine the diversity goals of the University and develop new approaches for broadening and strengthening diversity in the policies, programs and organizational structures of the University. (5) Assessing the effectiveness and results of the Affirmative Action Plan and its
implementation.
As in past years, through regularly scheduled meetings with the President’s Chief of Staff, as well as through meetings held at the end of the Plan year, Associate Vice President Conklin apprised the President of the results of the Plan and its implementation.
Resulting from a continuation of more stringent review and greater emphasis on recruiting, the University witnessed a significant increase of female, black and Hispanic applicants this Plan year. Search committees and hiring managers were particularly successful in recruiting higher percentages of underrepresented applicants qualifying for interview and offers. For example, the percentage of female applicants increased from 44.6% to 51.1%, black applicants from 6.9% to 8.55 and Hispanic applicants from 5.5% to 7.2%. Black female applicants increased significantly from 3.5% to 4.6%, resulting in an increase of offers to these applicants from 2.1% to 3.9%. Additionally, offers to females increased
Page 10 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation from 49.1% to 55.0%.
During the 2014 Plan year, the University was able to make several strategic hires of underrepresented and diverse candidates. For example, a BF was hired as an Assistant Vice President for Alumni Relations following a national search. Additionally, white females were hired into prominent leadership roles at the University in both University Planning and University Communications. Several white females (goal candidates) were hired as full professors. One of these hires was Nora Berrah, as the Department Head of Physics. Dr. Berrah, an internationally accomplished atomic, molecular and optical physicist is an advocate for women in physics and the sciences. As chair of the national
American Physical Society (APS) Committee on the Status of Women in Physics in 2007-08, Dr. Berrah led a workshop that convened more than 50 heads of physics departments from U.S. universities and national laboratories to produce a report and recommendations to increase the number of women in physics. She is also a Fellow of the APS and received the Society’s 2014 Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics for pioneering experiments on the interaction of atoms, molecules, negative ions, and clusters with ionizing vacuum ultraviolet and soft x-ray photons.
Lisa Park Boush, a prominent scholar in climate history, was hired as the new director of the Center of Integrative Geosciences and professor in geography. Dr Boush’s extensive career included three years as program director for the
National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Geosciences, where she oversaw grant review processes and helped develop resources for the geoscience research community. This prestigious rotating position is by invitation only and offered to top scholars in the field.
Additionally, at the Associate Professor level, two white females (goal candidates) were hired.
(6) Enforcement mechanisms.
As in in prior Plan years, the University continues to vest more responsibility in the Deans, Directors, and other lead executives to achieve affirmative action goals in the workforce. In addition, the University’s search and hiring procedures include a series of checks and balances to ensure that the law and spirit of affirmative action are applied throughout the recruiting and selection phase of searches. ODE reviews all search files prior to interviews, and before offers are extended, and withholds approval if the search documentation indicates procedural deficiencies or a lack of good faith effort.
Candidates interviewing for high-level managerial positions are asked to respond to inquiries regarding their competence and achievements in diversity, including their ability to work in a diverse environment. Job postings for positions in management,
Page 11 of 11
Sec N Internal Program Evaluation
faculty and staff have included achievements related to diversity issues as a factor in application evaluation.
Using these mechanisms and tools, the University will continue to monitor and evaluate its progress and results in achieving diversity and affirmative action goals in the University’s Affirmative Action Plan for Employment.
Page 1 of 5
Sec. N Internal Program Evaluation – Attachment A TO: Susan Herbst, President
FROM: The Office of Diversity and Equity
DATE: February 18, 2015
RE: Overview and Statistical Highlights – 2014 Affirmative Action Plan
Overview
The Office of Diversity and Equity has completed the University’s annual AffirmativeAction Plan for Employment (Plan) per the Connecticut General Statute (CGS) §46a-68. The Plan is a comprehensive, results-oriented set of procedures and programs that articulates the University’s strategy to combat discrimination, put forth a good faith effort to attain hiring goals, and to achieve equal employment opportunity.
The Plan’s objectives are to:
• Establish hiring, promotional, and program goals that promote affirmative action;
• Illustrate the University’s efforts to achieve a work force that is properly balanced and fully representational of the relevant labor market areas;
• Quantitatively and qualitatively measure the University’s degree of success in accomplishing hiring, promotion, and program goals; and
• Examine and eliminate any policy or employment practice that adversely affects members of protected classes.
The Plan is submitted annually for review and approval by the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). CHRO evaluates the Plan within 90 days, reviewing to ensure that the Plan contains all 18 required elements and meets the following standard of review:
1. The work force, considered as a whole and by occupational category, is in parity with the relevant labor market area; or
2. The agency has met all or substantially all of its hiring, promotion and program goals; or
3. The agency has demonstrated every good faith effort to achieve such goals and despite these efforts has been unable to do so; and
4. The agency has substantially addressed deficiencies noted by the commission in prior plan reviews in accordance with Section 46a-68-62 (c).
The University’s history of approvals has been based on CHRO’s acceptance that the University demonstrated every
good faith effort to meet goals, rather than actual goal achievement. Connecticut General Statutes Section 46a-68-31 (v) defines good faith effort as:
… that degree of care and diligence which a reasonable person would exercise in the performance of legal duties and obligations. At a minimum, it includes all those efforts reasonably necessary to achieve full compliance with the law. Further, it includes additional or substituted efforts when initial endeavors will not meet statutory or regulatory requirements. Finally, it includes documentary evidence of all action
undertaken to achieve compliance, especially where requirements have not or will not be achieved within the allotted time frames.
The 2013 Plan was Approved by the CHRO, based on Reviewer Dr. Valerie Kennedy’s recommendation. ODE met with Dr. Kennedy on June 17, 2014 for technical assistance and her recommendations have been addressed in the 2014 Plan.
Page 2 of 5
Sec. N Internal Program Evaluation – Attachment A
Workforce Statistics **
**In accordance with the 2010 Letter of Commitment to CHRO, temporary titles as defined by Article 24 and 26 of the By-Laws are not reflected in the workforce and analyses. University Post Doctoral Fellows and Graduate Assistants also are not included.
EEO CATEGORY GRAND TOTAL TOTAL MALE TOTAL FEMALE WHITE MALE WHITE FEMALE BLACK MALE BLACK FEMALE HISPANIC MALE HISPANIC FEMALE OTHER MALE OTHER FEMALE EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATIVE 90 50 40 43 32 3 6 0 1 4 1 FACULTY 1247 789 458 589 354 26 14 37 28 137 62 PROFESSIONAL/NON-FACULTY 2007 737 1270 637 1082 38 70 30 58 32 60 SECRETARIAL/CLERICAL 199 5 194 5 169 0 13 0 8 0 4 TECHNICAL PARAPROFESSIONAL 17 8 9 6 6 0 2 2 1 0 0 SKILLED CRAFT 110 107 3 94 3 4 0 7 0 2 0 PROTECTIVE SERVICES 98 89 9 81 8 5 0 2 1 1 0 SERVICE/MAINTENANCE 350 241 109 181 72 8 3 51 30 1 4 TOTAL 4118 2026 2092 1636 1726 84 108 129 127 177 131 % 100.0% 49.2% 50.8% 39.7% 41.9% 2.0% 2.6% 3.1% 3.1% 4.3% 3.2% 81.64% 4.66% 5.97% 7.48%
2014 Workforce by Race
White Black Hispanic Other
Page 3 of 5
Sec. N Internal Program Evaluation – Attachment A
Workforce by Category
48% 36% 3% 7% 1% 4% 1%Executive
WM WF BM BF HM HF OM OF 47% 29% 2% 1% 3% 2% 11% 5%Faculty
WM WF BM BF HM HF OM OF 36% 48% 2% 3% 3% 4% 1% 3%Staff
WM WF BM BF HM HF OM OFThe Executive Category includes University Director and higher titles.
White Females have seen an increase in each year for the past 5 years while White Males have decresed each year.
Black, Hispanic, and Other race/gender groups have been static.
Hispanic Males have not been represented in this category.
The Faculty category includes all Tenure- Track faculty, Extension faculty, and Special Internal Lecturers.
The Assistant Professor rank has the most diversity. White Males are 33% and White Females are 28% and under-represented groups are 39%.
The Professor rank has the least diversity with 59% White Male, 23% White Female, and 18% in the under-represented groups.
The Staff category includes all unclassified and classified employees.
All race/gender groups have been static. Females historically have been the largest group, with Secretarial/Clerical titles, UCPEA administrative titles, and the lower levels of UCPEA titles having the largest Female concentrations.
The Qualified Craft, Service Maintenance, and Protective Services titles have the greatest percentages of males, predominately White Male.
Page 4 of 5
Sec. N Internal Program Evaluation – Attachment A
New Hires
• 380 new hires between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014.
• 20.5 % (78) of the new hires were from under-represented groupsi, decreasing from 26.7 % in 2013.
• Black Females how the largest change from the previous year with an increase of 2.6%.
• Females decreased by 2.58%.
New Hires by Job Category
Total WM WF BM BF HM HF OM OF Executive 14 8 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 Faculty 80 34 18 1 0 6 3 10 8 Staff 286 106 118 13 16 9 10 4 10 Total 380 148 140 14 17 15 13 15 18 Executive
• New hires: 64.3% male: 57.1% WM, 7.1% OM, and 35.7% female: 28.6% WF and 7.1% BF.
• White Males historically had been the highest percentage of the new hires except for the 2012 Plan year.
Faculty
• 63.8% of the new hires were male and 36.2% were female. 35.0% were from under-represented groups.
• Professor:
58% Male with 6WM and 1 OM.
42% Female with 5 WF.
• Associate Professor:
67% Male with 5 WM and 1 HM.
33% Female with 2 WF
• Assistant Professor:
i The term “under-represented” includes black males and females, Hispanic males and females, and other males and females and is not
synonymous with hiring goals as defined by the Connecticut General Statute (CGS) §46a-68 and CHRO. 39% 37% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 5%
New Hires by Race/Gender
White Male White Female Black Male Black Female Hispanic Male Hispanic Female Other Male Other Female
Page 5 of 5
Sec. N Internal Program Evaluation – Attachment A 63% Male with 22WM, 1 BM, 4 HM, and 9 OM.
37% Female with 11 WF, 3 HF, and 7 OF.
• 12 hires were in the Professor title, 9 hires in the Associate Professor title, 57 in the Assistant Professor title, and 2 in Extension titles.
Staff
• 44% of the hires were male with 87 WM, 12 BM, 4 HM and 4 OM.
• 56% of the hires were female with 108 WF,15 BF, 6HF and 9 OF.
Goal Achievement
A hiring or promotional goal is set for each instance of underutilization of a race and/or gender group in any given job category. The utilization of race and/or gender groups is determined by comparing the representation of these groups in our workforce with the availability in the labor market. Underrepresentation in a specific race and/or gender group is based on the difference in percentages between the current workforce and the availability in the labor market. Goals are then set based on the number of positions needed in order for the workforce to reach parity with the available population in the labor market. Because of the constantly changing labor market and University workforce, goals are updated annually.
EEO Category Hires Goals Met % Achvmnt
2014 % Achvmnt 2013 Executive Managerial 14 2 14.3 15.4 Faculty 80 30 37.5 21.2 Professional 245 52 21.2 23.6 Secretarial/Clerical 12 2 16.7 0 Tech/Paraprofessional 2 0 0.0 50.0
Qualified Craft Worker 2 0 0.0 0
Protective Services 8 1 12.5 0
Service/Maintenance 17 3 17.6 32.1
Total 380 90 23.7 22.0
• Goal achievement has been between 23.0% and 30.0% in the past five years.
• CHRO considers 75.0% as “substantial” goal achievement.
Hiring Goal Achievement:
• 90 out of 380 hires, or 23.7%, during the Plan year met goals.
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
