Diversity Update 2010 September 2010

Equity Scorecard Framework AccessExcellence Institutional Receptivity Retention Equity in Educational Outcomes The Equity Scorecard was developed by Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon at the Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California ( Each of the four perspectives has an objective. From this objective we can: -Measure baseline performance -Set an improvement target -Work towards equity in educational outcomes.

Identities for Analysis This presentation is limited to identities for which we have quantitative information, including:  Race/ethnicity  Income level  First-generation in college  Gender  Geographic diversity. Information is not systematically available for other groups that are important to inclusive excellence.

Components: Enrollment – Undergraduate – Graduate – Professional – School/College Pipeline Financial Aid/Need-Based Aid Majors/Degrees AccessExcellence Institutional Receptivity Retention Access Equity in Educational Outcomes

From 2000 to 2010  4.9 percentage point increase in Minority Enrollment  3.9 percentage point increase in Targeted Minority Enrollment Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). Minorities include targeted minorities as well as Other Asians and Native Hawaiians. International students are not counted for targeted minority collections.

Race/Ethnic Categories: Students  Continued terminology from Plan 2008  Useful for national comparisons  Excludes all Asians, useful for national peer comparisons. Targeted Minorities include: » African American » Native American » Hispanic/Latino/a » Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong) Minorities include: » Targeted Minority categories » Other Asians » Native Hawaiians Underrepresented Minorities include: » African American » Native American » Hispanic/Latino/a » Native Hawaiian Students self-identify their race/ethnicity at the time of application. International students are not counted in any of these collections.

Access: Enrollment Reporting Methodologies for Race/Ethnicity Information The relatively new ability to indicate multiple race/ethnic values results in a much richer picture of student diversity but data reporting is more complicated. To deal with these complexities, methodology options for data reporting have emerged. The method that is most appropriate depends on for what purpose the data will be used. The table below describes the features of each method and shows how the methods are similar and different from each other. Reporting FeaturePrimaryFederalCount All Results in single count of students   Prioritizes Hispanic/Latina(a) over other values  Creates new categories that are not reported by students themselves  Displays race/ethnic values only for domestic (non international) students  Displays ALL students who indicate a particular race/ethnicity  Prioritizes some race/ethnicities over others  Used in external data reporting and rankings 

Access: Enrollment Fall 2010 UW-Madison Students by Race/Ethnicity and Methodology “Primary”FederalCount All Hispanic/Latino(a)1,5841,610 Black or African American1,2331,0891,313 American Indian or Alaska Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Asian2,4382,2162,205 White31,301 32,278 Two or more races Unknown1,317 International4,262 Total42,598 43,771 Subsequent slides use “Primary” race/ethnic methodology

From 2000 to 2010:  Increases in undergraduate enrollment in all race/ethnic categories  3.9 percentage point increase in undergraduate targeted minority enrollment Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories.

From 2000 to 2010:  3.2 percentage point increase in first-year undergraduate targeted minority enrollment Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories.

Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories. From 2000 to 2010:  Increases in graduate student enrollment in all race/ethnic categories  2.4 percentage point increase in graduate targeted minority enrollment

From 2000 to 2010:  Increases in professional student enrollment in all race/ethnic categories  0.8 percentage point increase in professional targeted minority enrollment Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories.

Access: Enrollment International Enrollment:  1,672 Undergraduate Students  2,252 Graduate Students  93 Professional Students  International students make up 10% of all enrollment.

From 2005 to 2010:  ↑ 5.3% increase in Pell Grant Recipients  Steady First Generation Enrollment  ↑ 1.4% increase in Targeted Minorities Access: Enrollment

In 2010, the College of Letters and Science has the largest number of undergraduate targeted minority students enrolled. The School of Human Ecology has the largest percentage of undergraduate targeted minority students enrolled, with 15 percent of SoHE students identifying as targeted minorities. Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories.

From Increases in targeted minority enrollment in all schools and colleges. The largest percentage increases in Pharmacy and the School of Human Ecology Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories.

Fall 2010 Education and Law have the highest percentages (16% and 15%, respectively) of targeted minority graduate/professional students. Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories.

Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories.

Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories. Individuals who indicate more than one race have a primary race selected giving precedence to the least prevalent race/ethnicity within Wisconsin’s population.

Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories.

Access: Enrollment Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories. Individuals who indicate more than one race have a primary race selected giving precedence to the least prevalent race/ethnicity within Wisconsin’s population.

Fall 2010  Women make up over 60% of undergraduate enrollment in Education, SoHE, and Nursing  Women make up less than 40% of undergraduate enrollment in Engineering. Access: Enrollment

Fall 2010  Women make up over 60% of graduate/professional student enrollment in Education, SoHE, Nelson Institute, Nursing, and Veterinary Medicine  Women make up less than 40% of graduate/professional student enrollment in Business and Engineering. Access: Enrollment

Access: Enrollment

Access: Enrollment Home County of UW-Madison Undergraduate Students (Wisconsin Residents) Among the 72 Wisconsin counties, each is represented by at least 6 undergraduate students in Fall There are 18,181 Wisconsin Resident undergraduates enrolled in Fall Black: More than 4% of resident undergraduates from county Dark Gray: Between 2% and 4% of resident undergraduates from county Light Gray: Less than 2% (but at least one student) of resident undergraduates from county

Access: Enrollment Students from Farms: Home County of UW-Madison Undergraduates from Wisconsin Farms* in *Students from farms are identified by the presence of farm income on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). There may be undergraduates from Wisconsin farms who did not apply for financial aid. Black: More than 4% of undergraduates from farms Dark Gray: Between 2% and 4% of undergraduates from farms Light Gray: Less than 2% (but at least one undergraduate) from farms White: No undergraduates from farms

Access: Enrollment Home County of UW-Madison Undergraduate FASTrack Participants in FASTrack is a financial aid program that assures a student’s financial need will be met each year for four years. Single, financially dependent students are considered for the program based on the family's current and past financial situation and need for assistance. Both work and borrowing are minimized to reduce the student's financial burden. All students who apply for aid are considered for FASTrack, there is no special application. Qualifying students are selected by the Office of Student Financial Aid. Black: More than 4% of undergraduates in the FASTrack program Dark Gray: Between 2% and 4% of undergraduates in the FASTrack program Light Gray: Less than 2% (but at least one student) of undergraduates in the FASTrack program White: No undergraduate participants in the FASTrack program

Access: Diversity Programs Programs that increase access and success for underrepresented populations on campus Programs with a Pre-College Component – PEOPLE – POSSE Student Support Programs – CeO (formerly TRIO) – Academic Advancement Program Scholarship Programs – Chancellor’s Scholars – Powers/Knapp – First Wave Academic Excellence Communities

Access: Enrollment *Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories. Academic Excellence Community Total Participants Targeted Minority* Male First Generation Academic Advancement Program (AAP) 43195%44%18% Center for Educational Opportunity (CEO) 54191%38%92% PEOPLE32390%40%53% Posse12081%45%68% First Wave43100%37%63% Chancellor’s Scholar Program %38%40% Powers/Knapp Program %44%55% All Undergraduates28,8809%48%22% Fall 2010 Undergraduate Participation in Academic Excellence Communities

Access: Pipeline: Minority Students “Well-prepared” high school graduates are in the top quartile of their graduating classes and score at least 22 (WI Average) on the ACT (or equivalent SAT score). “Minority” refers to students who identify as African American, Asian, Hispanic/ Latino/a, or Native American. South East Asians are unable to be separated from all other Asians in the Department of Public Instruction data.

Access: Pipeline UW-Madison’s Wisconsin Resident Recruiting Pool, by Race/Ethnicity

Access: Pipeline All groups except for Hispanic/Latino/a graduates are projected to see a decline in the number of high school graduates due to the current age structure of the population. Source: APL High School Graduate Projections, March

Access: Pipeline: First Generation *“Potential” First Generation Students does not imply any level of academic achievement, school enrollment, or preparedness. This estimate reflects the population with no parent/guardian in the household with a Bachelor’s Degree. Sources: Overall WI Population (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Estimates), Potential First Generation Students (“Parental Education and College Participation Rates in Wisconsin”, Sara Lazenby, August 2009), Applicants, Admits, and Enrolls for School Year An estimated 75% of year old Wisconsin residents live in households where no parent/guardian holds a bachelor’s degree. Approximately 26% of UW- Madison Resident New Freshman are first- generation students. We do not have a reliable data source on high school graduation or college preparedness by parental education levels for Wisconsin residents.

Access: Pipeline: Low Income “Economically Disadvantaged” represents those students who are eligible for free/reduced lunch. Sources: Wisconsin DPI WINSS, Enrollment by Student Group, Completions by Student Group UW-Madison Data based on Fall % of Public K-12 students in Wisconsin are Economically Disadvantaged ( ) 23%of Public High School Graduates are Economically Disadvantaged ( ) We have no reliable information on income of applicant students, all data based on financial aid applications 16% of Resident New Freshmen are Pell Grant Recipients

Access: Pipeline: Minority 21% of Public High School students in Wisconsin are minority students( ) 18%of Public High School Graduates are minority students ( ) 15% of Resident New Freshmen are minority students “Well-prepared” high school graduates are in the top quartile of their graduating classes and score at least 22 (WI Average) on the ACT (or equivalent SAT score). This does not reflect any policies by UW-Madison admissions with regards to academic preparation requirements.

Access: Pipeline Rural high school students apply at lower rates than other students Once they apply, they admit and enroll at rates proportional to their application rate. Source: High School Characteristics and Early Academic Performance at UW-Madison, Clare Huhn, APA,

Access: Pipeline Targeted Minority New Freshmen Fall 2009 / Fall New Freshmen (630)2001 New Freshmen (389) Non-Residents (250) WI Residents (380) Non-Residents (143) WI Residents (246) Illinois (80) POSSE (8) Milwaukee (97) PEOPLE (27) Illinois (42) Milwaukee (76) Other (72)Other (70) Minnesota (57) Dane (89) PEOPLE (31) Minnesota (36) Dane (54) Other (58) California (18) POSSE (9) Waukesha (25) California (9) Waukesha (16) Other (9) DC/Maryland (12) POSSE (7) Racine (14) PEOPLE (2) New York (7) Brown (12) Other (5)Other (12) Other States (83) Marathon (14) Other States (49) Outagamie (10) Kenosha (10) Kenosha (7) Other Counties (131) PEOPLE (6) Other Counties (71) Other (125) The first PEOPLE/POSSE students entered college in 2002

Access: Pipeline Targeted Minority New Transfers in Fall 2009 / Fall New Transfers(71)2001 New Transfers (68) Non-Residents (18) WI Residents (53) Non- Residents (21) WI Residents (47) Dane (26) Dane (22) Milwaukee (6) Milwaukee (6) Other Counties (21) Other Counties (19) Note: The PEOPLE program existed in 2001 but its students were still in high school.

Access: Pipeline New Targeted Minority Undergraduates in Fall 2001 and Fall 2009 Large increases (389 to 630 students) in new freshmen targeted minority enrollments Stable population of new transfer targeted minority enrollments Increases in new freshman from several Wisconsin counties. Increases in both in-state and out-of-state new targeted minority students More out-of-state students from DC/Maryland

Access: Applicants, Admits, and Enrolls Targeted minority and first- generation admitted applicants are more likely to enroll than the overall population of admits. Domestic non-residents are the least likely to enroll after being admitted.

Access: Applicants, Admits, and Enrolls Transfer students are more likely to apply without meeting the minimum requirements for admission Admit rates for transfer applicants are slightly lower than that for freshmen applicants for most groups. Transfer students are more likely to enroll at UW-Madison than their new freshmen counterparts. This is especially true of resident transfers.

Percent of Undergraduates who are Underrepresented Minorities at AAU Public Institutions, Fall 2008 Average Percent Underrepresented Minority for AAU Public Institutions: 13% 6 AAU Public Institutions have a lower percent of underrepresented minorities than UW-Madison. 9 AAU Public Institutions have a smaller number of underrepresented minorities than UW-Madison. Access: Peers Source: IPEDS Fall Enrollment, Fall 2008 Note: Underrepresented Minority does NOT include South East Asians when looking at peer data. 50%

Access: Comparisons UW-Madison had 2,750 targeted minority undergraduates (Fall 2009) There are 2,528 institutions in the United States that grant bachelor’s degrees. Of these, only 816 (32.3%) have more total undergraduates enrolled than UW-Madison has targeted minority undergraduates enrolled There are 48 institutions in Wisconsin that grant bachelor’s degrees. Of these, only 18 (38%) have more total undergraduates enrolled than UW-Madison has targeted minority students enrolled UW-Madison educates relatively large numbers of minority students

Percent of Undergraduates who Pell Recipients at AAU Public Institutions, Fall 2008 Average Percent Pell Recipients for AAU Public Institutions: 20% 1 AAU Public Institution has a lower percent of Pell recipients than UW-Madison. 9 AAU Public Institutions have a lower number of Pell recipients than UW-Madison. Access: Peers Source: IPEDS Fall Enrollment, Fall % Pell Grants are federally funded grants for students with high financial need. This indicator is a proxy for low income student enrollments.

Components : Retention Course-taking Success Degree Completion AccessExcellence Institutional Receptivity Retention Retention Equity in Educational Outcomes

Retention: All Students

Retention: Targeted Minorities

Retention: Targeted Minorities The gap in 6-Year graduation rates for targeted minority students has narrowed in the past five years. For the 2003 cohort, the gap in the 6-year graduation rate was 16 percentage points Gap in one-year retention rates between Federal Pell Grant recipients and all students has narrowed since For the 2008 entrance cohort, the gap between one-year retention rates is 2.3 percentage points

Retention: Pell Recipients

Gap in one-year retention rates between targeted minority students and all students has narrowed since For the 2008 entrance cohort, the gap in one-year retention rates was 3 percentage points. Retention: Pell Recipients Gap in six-year graduation rates between Federal Pell Grant recipients and all students has narrowed in the past five years. For the 2003 entrance cohort the gap between the 6-year graduation rate was 8.4 percentage points.

Retention: First Generation

Information for First- Generation students available starting with 2005 Cohort Information on graduation rates for first-generation students will be available by the end of The current gap in one- year retention for the 2008 entrance cohort is 2.4 percentage points Retention: First Generation

Retention: PEOPLE Program

Retention: PEOPLE Program Smaller Cohort sizes lead to more variation in retention rates for PEOPLE participants. In four of the last seven years PEOPLE participants had higher retention rates than the overall cohort For the 2008 entrance cohort there was a 3.7 percentage point gap in one-year retention rates Despite similar retention rates, gaps in graduation rates for PEOPLE program students still exist. For the 2003 entrance cohort, the gap in 6-year graduation rate was 12.1 percentage points.

Retention: Chancellor’s Scholars

Retention: Chancellor’s Scholars Higher retention rates than the overall student body every year since For the 2008 entrance cohort, the retention rate for Chancellor’s Scholars was 4.1 percentage points higher than the overall student retention rate. Chancellor’s Scholars have higher 6-year graduation rates than the overall student body. The 6-year graduation rate for the 2003 entrance cohort of Chancellor’s Scholars was 10.6 percentage points higher than the rate of the overall cohort.

Retention: AAP Participants

Retention: AAP Participants Participants in FIGs have similar retention rates to their overall cohorts. In 2008, the one-year retention rate for FIGs participants was.7 percentage points lower than the retention rate of the overall student body. FIGS Participants have higher graduation rates than the overall cohorts The number of FIGS participants has increased over time from 106 in 2001 to 537 in 2008 For the 2003 entrance cohort the 6-year graduation rate of FIGs participants was 1.6 percentage points higher than that of the overall cohort.

Retention: First Year Interest Groups (FIGs)

Retention: FIG Participants Participants in FIGs have similar retention rates to their overall cohorts. In 2008, the one-year retention rate for FIGs participants was.7 percentage points lower than the retention rate of the overall student body. FIGS Participants have higher graduation rates than the overall cohorts The number of FIGS participants has increased over time from 106 in 2001 to 537 in 2008 For the 2003 entrance cohort the 6-year graduation rate of FIGs participants was 1.6 percentage points higher than that of the overall cohort.

Retention: POSSE

Retention: Progression Successive Retention and Graduation Rates for 2003 Freshman Entrance Cohort Closing the graduation rate gap will require working on retention in the first three years and helping more targeted minority students graduate by the 4 and 5 year milestones.

Retention: Student Subgroups Equity in Educational Outcomes

Retention: Graduation Graduation Rate Gap Among Major Research Universities UW-Madison’s graduation rate gap stands at about 17.7 percentage points. 4 AAU institutions had a wider gap for the 2001,2002, and 2003 combined entrance cohorts.

Retention: Graduation Percentage Point Graduation Gap of Fall Entrance Cohorts AAU Universities Average graduation gap among AAU institutions is 9.6%

Retention: Progression Among new freshmen students who have at least 54 cumulative credits by the end of the 2 nd Spring Term, the gap in graduation rates between non- targeted and targeted students narrows from a 17.3 percentage point difference to 3.6 percentage point difference. 85% of Non-Targeted students meet the 54 credit threshold after the 2 nd spring term, while only 61% of Targeted students meet this threshold. The graduation rate gap narrows among students who complete 54 credits by the end of their 2 nd Spring term.

Retention: Progression Targeted minority students are less likely to meet the 54 credit threshold by the end of their second spring term (among new freshmen).

Grades GPA Honors and Awards Participation in High Demand Programs AccessExcellence Institutional Receptivity Retention Excellence Equity in Educational Outcomes

“Wisconsin Experience” captures four inquiry-based high-impact practices and includes: – Substantial research experiences that generate knowledge and analytical skills – Global and cultural competencies and engagement – Leadership and activism opportunities – Application of knowledge in the “real world” In , 89% of bachelor’s degree recipients participated in at least one Wisconsin Experience Program Participation rates were the same for targeted minorities and all students Excellence: Wisconsin Experience Equity in Educational Outcomes

Excellence: Wisconsin Experience Equity in Educational Outcomes Overall participation in at least one Wisconsin Experience activity did not differ by Targeted Minority Status

Excellence: Wisconsin Experience Equity in Educational Outcomes Transfer-start graduates participated in Wisconsin Experience activities at lower rates (82%) than freshman-start graduates (90%).

Excellence: Madison Initiative Madison Initiative for Undergraduates see Goals of MIU are to designed to advance the principles of Inclusive Excellence: 1.Preserve affordability of a UW- Madison education, primarily through expansion of need-based financial aid; 2.Increase the number of faculty and add instructional support to offer the courses, majors, and experiences that students need; 3.Expand best practices and innovation in teaching and learning, curricular design, and student services, in order to enhance student outcomes. Assures that students of all income levels have access to a UW-Madison education. Opportunity to hire approx. 75 faculty and 30 staff; attention to hiring for diversity in these searches, and all searches. High-impact learning practices benefit all students and are tied to higher retention and graduation rates.

Excellence: Madison Initiative MIU Projects Especially Focused on Advancing Diversity Goals Expansion of Chemistry Learning Center Expansion of Physics Learning Center Development of e-Learning spaces (includes curricular reform in pre-calculus Math courses) Expanded First Year Interest Groups to serve up to 1200 first- year students e-tutorial for international students about life in Madison and compliance with federal rules that govern immigration EXAMPLES

Excellence: Madison Initiative MIU Projects Especially Focused on Advancing Diversity Goals Common Scholarship Application, to help all students find the scholarships they are eligible for Center for the First Year Experience Transfer Student Program, to assist transfer students in the transition McBurney Center On-line Scheduling System, for captioning and interpreting services for deaf and hard-of-hearing students A FEW MORE EXAMPLES

Excellence: Madison Initiative MIU Need-based Financial Aid Funds from MIU added $5.1 million to institutional need-based grants in ,057 students received a total of $1.7M in “Hold Harmless Grants” for students with an adjusted family income of less than $80,000 annually (based on their FAFSA) A total of 1,260 students who had financial need received a UW-Madison Grant; $3.4M total, average award of $2,600 In the first year of MIU: $6.2M $6.9M $12.9M Institutional Need-based Grants

Excellence: Grades Achievement Gap Evident in Course Grades 76 Targeted minority undergraduates have higher rates of adverse outcomes in course grades than other undergraduates. Fall 2007Targeted Minority Non- Targeted Drop8.9%4.8% D/F/W/ NW/U/W 9.4%3.0% Adverse Outcome Rate 18.3%7.8%

Excellence: Grades Specific courses with high adverse outcome rates for targeted students compared with other students have been identified. They are the focus of curricular reform projects. Achievement Gap in Course Grades

Excellence: Grades Achievement Gap: Curricular Reform Initiatives to Improve Student Learning -Wide attention to data since 2008; several curriculum reform projects initiated in response to findings Examples: -Intro Chemistry (Chem 103), a UW System funded project -Intro Psychology (Psych 202) -Introductory/Pre-calculus Math courses Findings? Too soon to report impacts of curricular reform efforts.

Diversity of: – Faculty – Staff – Administrators Climate AccessExcellence Institutional Receptivity Retention Institutional Receptivity Equity in Educational Outcomes

Institutional Receptivity: Employees Employees self-identify their race/ethnicity at the time of hire. Employees may choose any of the following designations, and may select more than one designation as of 2009: White Black Asian American Indian Hispanic/ Latino/a Hawaiian A Campus survey was completed in 2009 to allow individuals to update their race/ethnic designation based on new reporting rules and the addition of Hawaiian/Pacific Islander to the race/ethnic categories.

Institutional Receptivity: Employees 2010 data available in December 2010 Employees by Category

Institutional Receptivity: Employees 2010 data available in December

Institutional Receptivity: Faculty 2010 data available in December

Institutional Receptivity: Faculty Increase in the percent of faculty hires that are minority hires data available in December

Institutional Receptivity: Faculty In 2009: 2,175 total faculty members 16.8% (364) of Faculty are racial/ethnic minorities. 7.2% increase in minority faculty since data available in December

Institutional Receptivity: Staff In 2009, 2,183 Instructional Academic Staff members 11.7% (256) of Instructional Academic Staff are racial/ethnic minorities 2.6% increase in minority instructional academic staff since data available in December

Institutional Receptivity: Staff In 2009: 4,938 non-instructional Academic Staff 12% of non- instructional Academic Staff are minorities 3.4% increase in minority non- instructional academic staff since data available in December

Institutional Receptivity: Staff In 2009: 5,366 Classified Staff members 12.6% (676) of classified staff are minorities 8.4% increase in minority classified staff since data available in December

Institutional Receptivity: Staff In 2009: 399 Executive/Director /Administrators 11.2% of Executive/Director /Administrators are racial/ethnic minorities Slight increase in the proportion who are minorities data available in December

Institutional Receptivity: Staff Minority faculty members make up almost 17% of all faculty members. This is the largest proportion among the various employment groups data available in December

Institutional Receptivity: Employees 2010 data available in December Women made up around 50% of all employees at UW-Madison. -A smaller proportion of faculty members are women (30%)

Institutional Receptivity: Employees 2010 data available in December Around 13% of all employees are minorities -A larger proportion of faculty are minorities, especially among men.

Institutional Receptivity: Promotion For these rates, those that did not receive tenure include the following: – Those who were denied tenure – Those who left the university for another position elsewhere – A few faculty members still hold probationary appointments after 9 years. Tenure and promotion rates are calculated at 6 and 9 years after hire, in order to allow for those who have extensions on the tenure clock. Data for tenure charts in this slideshow combine hires from to or to This is necessary due to the small number of faculty, especially women and minority faculty, who are hired within a division in a given year. Small Ns make tenure/promotion rates subject to large variation. Notes about faculty promotion data:

Institutional Receptivity: Promotion At 9 years, 64% of women faculty have been promoted to tenure. Percent tenured based on data for hires from to

Institutional Receptivity: Promotion A lower percentage of women and men are promoted to tenure within the Social Studies. The largest gap in tenure rates by gender is within the Physical Sciences division. Data on faculty hires from to

Institutional Receptivity: Promotion At 9 Years, 64% of minority faculty members have been promoted to tenure. Percent tenured based on data for hires from to

Institutional Receptivity: Promotion A lower percentage of faculty members are promoted to tenure within the Social Studies division. The largest gap in tenure rates by minority status is within the Physical Sciences and Arts and Humanities. Data on faculty hires from to

Institutional Receptivity: Promotion Selecting a divisional affiliation is a step in the tenure process. Faculty are not required to identify their divisional affiliation at the time of hire, but many do. Women, especially minority women, are heavily concentrated within the Social Studies Division See next slide for numbers of faculty by division, gender, and minority status Note: Chart excludes 41 faculty members who have not yet selected a disciplinary division, as they are not required to do so until they go up for tenure. Data as of October 2009 payroll.

Institutional Receptivity: Promotion Women, especially minority women, are heavily concentrated within the Social Studies Division See previous slide for percent by division Note: Chart excludes 41 faculty members who have not yet selected a disciplinary division, as they are not required to do so until they go up for tenure. Data as of October 2009 payroll.

Institutional Receptivity: Promotion Data on faculty hires from to

Institutional Receptivity: Promotion Data on faculty hires from to All groups have lower promotion rates within the Social Studies division. Women, and especially minority women, are more likely to be within the social studies division. For groups with small hiring pools, the effect of one person’s tenure/non-tenure can affect the percent tenured dramatically. Those not receiving tenure includes those who took a position elsewhere or still have a probationary appointment after 9 years. Key findings from tenure/promotion data:

Institutional Receptivity: Peer Comparisons for Faculty Diversity Non-White Full-Time Faculty as a Percent of Total Full-Time Faculty at AAU Public Institutions, 2008 Average Percent Non-White Faculty for AAU Public Institutions: 25.5% Source: IPEDS Fall HR,

Institutional Receptivity: Climate Some Recent Climate Studies UW-Madison participation in UW System Climate Study Pilot Project (limited to CALS and Office of Student Life), Letters & Science Climate Study, ; with linkages to STEM, teaching and learning communities CALS Climate Study, NSSE Survey includes many climate-related questions, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2011 (planned) WISELI Studies and Programs, on-going since

Institutional Receptivity: Climate Participation in the UW System Climate Study, UW-Madison is participating in Tier III of the UW System Climate Study Initiated by UWSA at the request of the Board of Regents Tier I was implemented in Tier II was implemented in Questionnaire will go to all employees and students in Spring 2011; responses are anonymous and confidential For logistical reasons, the study will be fielded only in CALS and Division of Student Life Reports are expected in summer 2011 Campus oversight by a “Diversity Leadership Committee” Institutional implementation by the “Climate Study Working Group” More detail:

Institutional Receptivity: Climate Selected NSSE Results ** significantly different Percent of Seniors who often or very much: See:

Institutional Receptivity: Climate Selected NSSE Results ** significantly different Percent of Seniors for whom the university emphasizes quite a bit or very much: See:

Equity Scorecard Framework AccessExcellence Institutional Receptivity Retention Equity in Educational Outcomes The Equity Scorecard was developed by Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon at the Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California ( In UW- Madison will formally participate in the Equity Scorecard framework.

Diversity Update 2010 Slideshow available at Questions about these slides: – Sara Lazenby – Jocelyn Milner