Retention Survey Report Submitted March 22, 2004; corrections March 29, 2004 Presented 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.

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

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

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

Top 5 Reasons for Leaving Pitt ReasonMeanSD Attraction to other university or department Problems-deficiencies at Pitt or in department Intellectual community-collegiality Working conditions Opportunities for autonomy-growth Ratings were made on 5-point scales: 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important

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

Top 5 Reasons for Leaving Pitt ReasonPercent ≥ 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

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

Overall Equity-Relevant Ratings ReasonMeanSD Equity for all relative to field Equity for all within department Importance of atmosphere for women as a reason for leaving Importance of employment for spouse/partner as a reason for leaving Importance of salary for women as a reason for leaving Ratings 1 = not at all equitable to 5 = very equitable; 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important

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

Overall Equity-Relevant Ratings Reason Percent ≥ 3 Equity for all relative to field76.4% Equity for all within department64.6% 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

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

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)

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

Individual Ratings Importance of employment for spouse/partner as a reason for leaving MeanSD Males Females Percent ≥ 3 Males 16.7% Females 50.0% Ratings 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important

Pattern of Ratings (Percent ≥ 3) Rating MalesFemales Perceived equity in department80.0%58.3% Importance as reason for leavingMalesFemales Problems/deficiencies in department66.7%85.7% Conflict with individual(s)33.3%57.1% Research support-funding40.1%57.1% Employment opportunities – spouse/partner16.7%50.0% Atmosphere for women33.3%46.7% Respect for/centrality of expertise33.3%46.7% Percentages reflect those giving ratings of 3 = moderately important to 5 = very important

Pattern of Ratings (Percent ≥ 3) (continued) Importance as reason for leavingMalesFemales Salary for women0%42.8% Mode of evaluation0%40.0% Atmosphere for other diversity groups0%23.1% Atmosphere for people of color0%21.3% Salary for people of color0%20.0% Salary for other diversity groups0%10.0% Salary-benefits83.3%42.9% Opportunities for promotion66.7%40.0% Level of student ability-motivation60.0%26.7% Percentages reflect those giving ratings of 3 = moderately important to 5 = very important

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

Satisfaction with Handling of Leave MeanSD At the department level At the Dean’s level Percent ≥ 3 At the department level 63.2% At the Dean’s level 42.8% Ratings 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important

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

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

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

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