Retention Survey ReportSubmitted 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 TimelineSpring, 2003 Survey developed; sample identifiedMay, 2003 Survey e-mailedJuly, 2003 Returns completed (42.9%)August, 2003 Analyses, draft report completedOctober, 2003 Progress report circulatedJanuary, 2004 Draft report, Executive Summary

circulated and discussedFebruary, 2004 Subcommittee recommendations,

additional analyses/corrections suggestedMarch, 2004 Report/Summary approved by PACWCMay, 2004 Report/Summary presented to Provost

Sample

Target: faculty at all campuses who left between 2000-2002 (not Medical School) N=4921 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

Primary Measures

26 ratings (5-point rating scales)2 open-ended questionsSelected demographics (identities confidential)

Mean ratings and SDs % of respondents giving rating ≥ 3Comments coded into 90 themes, 10 categories

Top 5 Reasons for Leaving Pitt

Reason Mean SDAttraction 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

Interpretation

Professional issues most importantCompensation 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

Reason Percent ≥ 3Attraction 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

Reason Mean SDEquity 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

Interpretation

Pitt seen as moderately equitable overallGender 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 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

Interpretation

Gender, race, sexual orientation, age, and disability were not primary overall concernsGender 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

Mean SD

Males 1.33 0.82

Females 2.93 2.02

Percent ≥ 3

Males 16.7%

Females 50.0%

Ratings 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important

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

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

Interpretation

Male and female faculty differed in pattern of response

All females did not express same concernsMore important among women:– dual career issues – issues related to equity and diversity

Satisfaction with Handling of Leave

Mean SD

At the department level 3.00 1.45

At the Dean’s level 2.52 1.72

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