1 / 24

Retention Survey Report Submitted March 22, 2004; corrections March 29, 2004 Presented to the Provost on May 28, 2004

This report presents the findings of a retention survey conducted by the Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee. It includes demographic breakdowns, top reasons for leaving, equity ratings, gender differences, and recommendations for improving retention.

maxima
Download Presentation

Retention Survey Report Submitted March 22, 2004; corrections March 29, 2004 Presented to the Provost on May 28, 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee, PACWC (2001/2-2003/4) Randi Koeske, Ph.D., Chair Nicole Constable, Ph.D. Kim Needy, Ph.D. Retention Survey ReportSubmitted March 22, 2004; corrections March 29, 2004Presented to the Provost on May 28, 2004

  2. Survey Timeline • Spring, 2003 Survey developed; sample identified • May, 2003 Survey e-mailed • July, 2003 Returns completed (42.9%) • August, 2003 Analyses, draft report completed • October, 2003 Progress report circulated • January, 2004 Draft report, Executive Summary circulated and discussed • February, 2004 Subcommittee recommendations, additional analyses/corrections suggested • March, 2004 Report/Summary approved by PACWC • May, 2004 Report/Summary presented to Provost

  3. Sample • Target: faculty at all campuses who left between 2000-2002 (not Medical School) N=49 • 21 survey respondents (42.9%) • Demographic breakdown: • - 71.4% female • - 85.7% white • - 85.7% Oakland campus (2 from UPJ, 1 from UPG) • - 42.9% tenured, 100% in tenure stream • - 57.1% assistant, 9.5% associate, 33.3% full professors

  4. Primary Measures • 26 ratings (5-point rating scales) • 2 open-ended questions • Selected demographics (identities confidential) • Mean ratings and SDs • % of respondents giving rating ≥ 3 • Comments coded into 90 themes, 10 categories

  5. Top 5 Reasons for Leaving Pitt Ratings were made on 5-point scales: 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important

  6. Interpretation • Professional issues most important • Compensation mattered, especially when seen as • undervaluing or misuse • part of mishandled priorities • sign of indifference • Salary over time/retention package  lack of perceived merit or commitment

  7. Top 5 Reasons for Leaving Pitt Percentages reflect those giving ratings of 3 = moderately important to 5 = very important

  8. Interpretation • Leaving resulted from a combination of factors • Considerable variability across individuals

  9. Overall Equity-Relevant Ratings Ratings 1 = not at all equitable to 5 = very equitable; 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important

  10. Interpretation • Pitt seen as moderately equitable overall • Gender issues top-rated among diversity concerns as reasons for leaving • - atmosphere for women • - employment opportunities for spouse/partner • - salary for women

  11. Overall Equity-Relevant Ratings Percentages of 3 = moderately equitable to 5 = very equitable; 3 = moderately important to 5 = very important

  12. Interpretation • Gender, race, sexual orientation, age, and disability were not primary overall concerns • Gender was important to a subgroup of females • - overall gender comparisons • - exploratory analysis • - analysis of comments

  13. Exploration - Comments • Comments helped to clarify ratings • male-only bathrooms • female-offensive behavior not addressed • administrative advancement less open to women • failure to address employment of spouse/partner(6 or 28.5%) • poor maternity leave options (1990, 1995)

  14. Exploration – Gender Differences • Focus on equity ratings, diversity-related concerns as reasons for leaving • overall gender difference (p < .08): employment opportunities for spouse or partner • compared % of male and female respondents with ratings of moderate to high importance (≥ 3) • examined gender differences in patterns of response

  15. Individual Ratings Ratings 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important

  16. Pattern of Ratings(Percent ≥3) Percentages reflect those giving ratings of 3 = moderately important to 5 = very important

  17. Pattern of Ratings(Percent ≥ 3)(continued) Percentages reflect those giving ratings of 3 = moderately important to 5 = very important

  18. Interpretation • Male and female faculty differed in pattern of response • All females did not express same concerns • More important among women: • dual career issues • issues related to equity and diversity

  19. Satisfaction with Handling of Leave Ratings 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important

  20. Comments • Top 3 areas in which comments were offered: • department/school (52.7%) • women’s issues (47.3%) • attraction to offer elsewhere (42.2%) • Female faculty commented more often on • women’s issues • administration’s handling of departure • professional issues • salaries/benefits

  21. Study Limitations • Importance of diversity concerns apart from gender unknown • PACWC connection? • Larger samples, improved response rate, analysis of comparable data over time

  22. Conclusions • Faculty may explore other positions to “test waters” • “Window of opportunity” for retention • Diversity is a valuable institutional structure; differences not always merely personal – pay attention/build climate • Attend to absolute salary level over time • Dual career accommodation and a positive atmosphere for women  the retention of female faculty

  23. Recommendations • Exit interviews and/or regular surveys • Address dual career needs and other climate issues for women faculty; Action Plan with monitoring • Review salaries, salary increments, benefits, lab space, support, etc. by group; assume proactive role • Work supportively with other efforts to improve status of women, e.g., Senate Plenary on Women committee

More Related