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

1
Retention Survey ReportSubmitted March 22,
2004 corrections March 29, 2004Presented to the
Provost on May 28, 2004

• Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee, PACWC
  (2001/2-2003/4)
• Randi Koeske, Ph.D., Chair
• Nicole Constable, Ph.D.
• Kim Needy, Ph.D.

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) N49
• 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
Reason Mean SD
Attraction to other university or department 3.90 1.58
Problems-deficiencies at Pitt or in department 3.85 1.63
Intellectual community-collegiality 3.43 1.57
Working conditions 3.05 1.62
Opportunities for autonomy-growth 2.90 1.84
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
Reason Percent 3
Attraction to other university or department 80.9
Problems-deficiencies at Pitt or in department 80.0
Intellectual community-collegiality 71.4
Working conditions 63.2
Salary-benefits 55.0
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
Reason Mean SD
Equity for all relative to field 3.29 1.31
Equity for all within department 3.18 1.59
Importance of atmosphere for women as a reason for leaving 2.50 1.76
Importance of employment for spouse/partner as a reason for leaving 2.45 1.88
Importance of salary for women as a reason for leaving 2.18 1.55
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
Reason Percent 3
Equity for all relative to field 76.4
Equity for all within department 64.6
Importance of atmosphere for women as a reason for leaving 44.5
Importance of employment for spouse/partner as a reason for leaving 40.0
Importance of salary for women as a reason for leaving 35.3
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 lt .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
Importance of employment for spouse/partner as a reason for leaving Importance of employment for spouse/partner as a reason for leaving Importance of employment for spouse/partner as a reason for leaving
Mean SD
Males 1.33 0.82
Females 2.93 2.02
Percent 3 Percent 3
Males 16.7 16.7
Females 50.0 50.0
Ratings 1 not at all important to 5 very
important
16
Pattern of Ratings (Percent 3)
Rating Males Females
Perceived equity in department 80.0 58.3
Importance as reason for leaving Males Females
Problems/deficiencies in department 66.7 85.7
Conflict with individual(s) 33.3 57.1
Research support-funding 40.1 57.1
Employment opportunities spouse/partner 16.7 50.0
Atmosphere for women 33.3 46.7
Respect for/centrality of expertise 33.3 46.7
Percentages reflect those giving ratings of 3
moderately important to 5 very important
17
Pattern of Ratings (Percent 3) (continued)
Importance as reason for leaving Males Females
Salary for women 0 42.8
Mode of evaluation 0 40.0
Atmosphere for other diversity groups 0 23.1
Atmosphere for people of color 0 21.3
Salary for people of color 0 20.0
Salary for other diversity groups 0 10.0
Salary-benefits 83.3 42.9
Opportunities for promotion 66.7 40.0
Level of student ability-motivation 60.0 26.7
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
Mean SD
At the department level 3.00 1.45
At the Deans level 2.52 1.72
Percent 3 Percent 3
At the department level 63.2 63.2
At the Deans level 42.8 42.8
Ratings 1 not at all important to 5 very
important
20
Comments

• Top 3 areas in which comments were offered
• department/school (52.7)
• womens issues (47.3)
• attraction to offer elsewhere (42.2)
• Female faculty commented more often on
• womens issues
• administrations 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

24
(No Transcript)