WORKFORCE UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
TABLE ONE Workforce Representation � Statistical Representation of Protected Class by EEO-6 Category
This table presents data by job category on Women, People of Color, Veterans and the Disabled at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth as of March 31, 2006.
- In 2006, UMass Dartmouth’s total staff was 19.0% Persons of Color and 48.0% Women.
- Within leadership positions, the campus was 22.9% Persons of Color and 22.9% Women. This group represents the Provost and Vice Chancellors, Academic Deans, Associate Vice Chancellors, and major Directors (Admissions, Registrar, etc.).
- Faculty was 21.0% Persons of Color and 32.0% Women.
- Non-Faculty Professionals (directors of smaller units, associate and assistant directors, and other professional staff) represent a major workforce for the campus and, traditionally, growth opportunities for both women and persons of color. In Spring 2006, UMass Dartmouth’s Non-faculty Professionals was 14.0% Persons of Color and 54.0% Women.
- The 4 positions represented by Secretarial/Clerical, Technical/ Paraprofessional, Skilled Crafts, and Service/Maintenance staff were altogether 21.0% Persons of Color and 57.5% Women.
| Total | Female | Minority | Veterans | Disabled* | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EEO-6 Category | # | # | % | # | % | # | % | # | % |
| Executive/Admin./Managerial | 35 | 8 | 22.9 | 8 | 22.9 | 3 | 8.6 | - | - |
| Faculty** | 300 | 97 | 32.0 | 63 | 21.0 | 11 | 3.7 | - | - |
| Secretarial/Clerical | 188 | 169 | 90.0 | 45 | 23.9 | 2 | 1.1 | - | - |
| Techical/Paraprofessional | 49 | 9 | 18.4 | 8 | 16.3 | 2 | 4.1 | - | - |
| Skilled Crafts | 35 | 3 | 8.6 | 3 | 8.6 | 2 | 5.7 | - | - |
| Service/Maintenance | 100 | 33 | 33.0 | 22 | 22.0 | 5 | 5.0 | - | - |
| TOTAL | 1022 | 489 | 48.0 | 190 | 19.0 | 38 | 4.0 | - | - |
*Please Note: Information for this report was unavailable for the 2006-2007 years.
** Please Note: Tenure-system faculty; excludes all student, hourly employees, part-time faculty and non-tenured full-time faculty.
TABLE TWO Workforce Change � Statistical Representation for 2005-2006
Table Two presents the diversity within the workforce by job category for 2005 and 2006.
- The overall pattern of change between 2005 and 2006 is relatively stable. Both gains and losses are minor.
- Overall across the UMass Dartmouth workforce, diversity has remained close to level. There is an increase of 1.3% in the percentage of Persons of Color but a 0.6% reduction in percentage of Women.
- Last year, comparing 2004 and 2005, we saw a small increase of Women in administrative leadership but a slight decline in Persons of Color. The trend is reversed between 2005 and 2006, which shows a 6.2% increase in administrators who are Persons of Color and a 3.8% decrease in administrators who are Women. While annual fluctuations of this sort occur, the longer-range pattern is one of stability.
- Comparison of faculty must be qualified, since we have data on two somewhat different populations; the 2005 counts include full-time temporary faculty while the 2006 data exclude them. Both Faculty of Color and faculty who are Women have increased. Because new hires account for the shift, we can predict higher numbers of associate and full to reflect gender and ethnic diversity as time goes on, based on current numbers.
- Among the Non-Faculty Professionals (directors of smaller units, associate and assistant directors, and other professional staff), there is very little change. Diversity has slightly decreased, by 1.1%. We note that in the previous year, we saw an increase of 1.1% in diversity.
- The positions represented by Secretarial/Clerical, Technical/ Paraprofessional, Skilled Crafts, and Service/Maintenance staff altogether lost 1% in diversity but gained 1% in Women. Last year’s trend was the reverse. Again, longer-range stability is shown.
| Total | Female | Minority | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EEO-6 Category | Year | # | # | % | # | % |
| Executive/Admin./Managerial | 2006 | 35 | 8 | 22.9 | 8 | 22.9 |
| 2005 | 30 | 8 | 26.7 | 5 | 16.7 | |
| Faculty* | 2006 | 300 | 97 | 32.0 | 63 | 21.0 |
| 2005 | 348 | 117 | 26.0 | 62 | 14.0 | |
| Professional/Non-Faculty | 2006 | 315 | 170 | 54.0 | 44 | 14.0 |
| 2005 | 291 | 155 | 53.3 | 44 | 15.1 | |
| Secretarial/Clerical | 2006 | 188 | 169 | 90.0 | 45 | 23.9 |
| 2005 | 184 | 164 | 89.1 | 45 | 24.5 | |
| Techical/Paraprofessional | 2006 | 49 | 9 | 18.4 | 8 | 16.3 |
| 2005 | 52 | 12 | 23.1 | 7 | 13.5 | |
| Skilled Crafts | 2006 | 35 | 3 | 8.6 | 3 | 8.6 |
| 2005 | 29 | 1 | 3.4 | 4 | 13.8 | |
| Service/Maintenance | 2006 | 100 | 33 | 33.0 | 22 | 22.0 |
| 2005 | 90 | 27 | 30.0 | 22 | 24.4 | |
| GRAND TOTAL | 2006 | 1022 | 489 | 48.0 | 190 | 19.0 |
| 2005 | 1024 | 484 | 47.0 | 189 | 18.0 | |
*Includes non-tenured Assistant Professors. The numbers for 2005 also includes full-time temporary faculty and so are not directly comparable to 2006.
TABLES THREE AND FOUR Utilization
Utilization studies compare the data for UMass Dartmouth against patterns in the broader region or the nation as a whole, as appropriate for each category of work. The analysis uses what is called the “80% rule,” whereby underutilization exists if the campus figure for either Women or Persons of Color is less than 80% of that for the appropriate comparison group. The comparisons are derived from a comprehensive nationwide database via the Criterion Affirmative Action Management System (CAAMS) program.
The tables present the figures for our campus, followed by columns for the appropriate comparison groups. The first point of comparison is “Availability,” followed by a calculation of the “Shortfalls.” In the final two columns, the word “Yes” in the table indicates that underutilization exists for that job category, and “No” indicates that underutilization is not present.
TABLE THREE Faculty Utilization
This table presents data on faculty diversity for each of the Dartmouth campus’s academic departments. It provides a focused means of assessing our current situation in a meaningful comparison to national, normed data.
This summary will emphasize the basic findings of underutilization, for the colleges and major program groups. The reader should refer to the detailed Table for the specific information, program by program, and to understand the degrees to which the programs utilize women and Persons of Color. For example, one can gauge the amounts of utilization by looking at the “shortfalls” percentages for each program. As stated earlier, comparison of faculty must be qualified, since we have data on two somewhat different populations. The 2005 counts included full-time temporary faculty while the 2006 data exclude them. However, in most cases this does not seem to affect the overall patterns.
- General finding: across its many academic programs, the Dartmouth campus has a continuing challenge to achieve a solid record of faculty diversity, as measured by utilization data. However, our new numbers represent some improvement from previous years. Of our thirty-one departments, in 2006 six departments had a positive utilization record for either Women or Faculty of Color, or both. The six with a positive utilization record of diversity were Marketing/MIS, Computer and Information Science, Physics, Art Education, Art History, and Design. Progress is shown, in that in 2005 only four departments were fully meeting the utilization goals. We have difficulty attracting and retaining African Americans, Latinos and Women faculty.
- In the College of Arts and Sciences, our four Science departments generally underutilized both Faculty of Color and Women. Biology, Chemistry, and Mathematics underutilized Women. Mathematics and Medical Laboratory Science underutilized Faculty of Color.
- In the College of Arts and Sciences, our five Social Science departments also tended to underutilize both Faculty of Color and Women. Economics, Political Science, and Psychology underutilized women. Psychology and Sociology underutilized Faculty of Color.
- In the College of Arts and Sciences, our four Humanities departments also tended to underutilize both Faculty of Color and Women. The English, Foreign Literature/Languages, History, and Portuguese departments underutilized women. Foreign Literature/Languages and Philosophy, and Portuguese underutilized Faculty of Color.
- The College of Business compares favorably with nationwide norms. One of its three departments, Accounting, underutilized women. Management underutilized Faculty of Color.
- The College of Engineering has departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Computer and Information Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, and Materials and Textiles. Three of these six departments underutilized Women, an improvement over the previous year’s record of only one department not underutilizing. The same departments do not underutilize Faculty of Color�with the exception of one, Civil and Environmental Engineering.
- The College of Nursing underutilized Faculty of Color.
- The School of Marine Science and Technology underutilized Women but not Faculty of Color.
- The College of Visual and Performing Arts has an improving record over the previous year. Only two departments underutilized women and two underutilized Faculty of Color among the College’s five departments; only one department, Fine Arts, underutilized both. The departments of Design, Fine Arts, and Music underutilized Women. The departments of Art Education, Art History, and Design showed underutilization in neither category.
Total # Fem # Fem % Min # Min % Fem % Min % Fem % Min % Fem Min
College of Arts & Sciences Total 140 47 33.5% 23 16.4%
Biology Total 14 6 42.8% 3 21.4% 46.0% 17.0% 3.2% - Yes No
Biology Tenured 5 1 20.0% 1 20.0%
Biology Non-Tenured 9 5 55.5% 2 22.2%
Chemistry & Biochemistry Total 14 2 14.3% 5 35.7% 30.0% 12.0% 15.7% - Yes No
Chemistry & Biochemistry Tenured 11 2 18.1% 4 36.4%
Chemistry & Biochemistry Non-Tenured 3 - - 1 33.3%
Economics Total 5 1 20.0% 1 20.0% 31.0% 19.0% 11.0% - Yes No
Economics Tenured 1 - - - -
Economics Non-Tenured 4 1 25.0% 1 25.0%
Education Total 4 3 75.0% - - 64.0% 16.0% - 16.0% No Yes
Education Tenured 2 1 50.0% - -
Education Non-Tenured 2 2 100.0% - -
English Total 22 8 36.4% 3 13.6% 59.0% 10.0% 22.6% - Yes No
English Tenured 15 6 40.0% 1 6.7%
English Non-Tenured 7 2 28.6% 2 28.6%
Foreign Lit & Languages Total 6 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 59.0% 24.0% 42.3% 7.3% Yes Yes
Foreign Lit & Languages Tenured 6 1 16.7% 1 16.7
Foreign Lit & Languages Non-Tenured - - - - -
History Total 11 3 27.3% 3 27.3% 38.0% 9.0% 10.7% - Yes No
History Tenured 6 1 16.7% 2 33.3%
History Non-Tenured 5 2 40.0% 1 20.0%
Mathematics Total 13 2 15.4% 2 15.4% 24.0% 18.0% 8.6% 2.6% Yes Yes
Mathematics Tenured 12 2 16.7% 1 8.3%
Mathematics Non-Tenured 1 - - 1 100.0%
Medical Laboratory Science Total 6 4 67.0% - - 48.0% 18.0% - 18.0% No Yes
Medical Laboratory Science Tenured 6 4 67.0% - -
Medical Laboratory Science Non-Tenured - - - - -
Philosophy Total 4 2 50.0% - - 26.0% 8.0% - 8.0% No Yes
Philosophy Tenured 2 1 50.0% - -
Philosophy Non-Tenured 2 1 50.0% - -
Policy Studies Total 2 - - - -
Policy Studies Tenured 2 - - - -
Policy Studies Non-Tenured - - - - -
Political Science Total 7 2 28.60% 2 28.6% 32.0% 16.0% 3.4% - Yes No
Political Science Tenured 3 - - 2 66.7%
Political Science Non-Tenured 4 2 50.0% - -
Portuguese Total 5 2 40.0% 1 20.0% 60.0% 24.0% 20.0% 4.0% Yes Yes
Portuguese Tenured 4 1 25.0% 1 25.0%
Portuguese Non-Tenured 1 1 100.0% - -
Psychology Total 15 5 33.3% - - 63.0% 12.0% 29.7% 12.0% Yes Yes
Psychology Tenured 11 3 27.3% - -
Psychology Non-Tenured 4 2 50.0% - -
Sociology & Anthropology Total 12 6 50.0% 2 16.7% 56.0% 19.0% 6.0% 2.3% No Yes
Sociology & Anthropology Tenured 7 2 28.6% 1 14.3%
Sociology & Anthropology Non-Tenured 5 4 80.0% 1 20.0%
Women's Studies Total - - - - -
Women's Studies Tenured - - - - -
Women's Studies Non-Tenured - - - - -
Charlton College of Business Total 33 10 30.3 9 27.2%
Accounting & Finance Total 10 2 20.0% 5 50.0% 40.0% 22.0% 2.0% - Yes No
Accounting & Finance Tenured 6 - - 3 50.0%
Accounting & Finance Non-tenured 4 2 50.0% 2 50.0%
Management Total 14 5 35.7% 2 14.3% 28.0% 18.0% - 3.7% No Yes
Management Tenured 10 4 40.0% 2 20.0%
Management Non-Tenured 4 1 25.0% - -
Marketing/MIS Total 9 3 33.3% 2 22.2% 38.0% 15.0% 4.7% - No No
Marketing/MIS Tenured 6 1 16.7% 1 16.7%
Marketing/MIS Non-Tenured 3 2 66.7% 1 33.3%
College of Engineering Total 67 8 12.0% 24 36.0%
Civil & Environmental Engineering Total 8 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 18.0% 22.0% 5.5% - Yes No
Civil & Environmental Engineering Tenured 6 1 16.7% 2 33.3%
Civil & Environmental Engineering Non-Tenured 2 - - - -
Computer & Info. Science Total 13 2 15.4% 5 38.5% 17.0% 21.0% 1.6% - No No
Computer & Info. Science Tenured 6 1 16.7% - -
Computer & Info. Science Non-Tenured 7 1 14.3% 5 71.4%
Electrical & Computer Eng. Total 18 3 16.7% 4 22.2% 11.0% 32.0% - 9.8% No Yes
Electrical & Computer Eng. Tenured 16 1 6.3% 3 18.7%
Electrical & Computer Eng. Non-Tenured 2 2 100.0% 1 50.0%
Mechanical Engineering Total 14 1 7.1% 7 50.0% 9.0% 27.0% 1.9% - Yes No
Mechanical Engineering Tenured 9 - - 4 44.4%
Mechanical Engineering Non-Tenured 5 1 20.0% 3 60.0%
Physics Total 9 1 11.1% 4 44.4% 12.0% 16.0% - - No No
Physics Tenured 6 1 16.7% 3 50.0%
Physics Non-Tenured 3 - - 1 33.3%
Materials and Textiles Total 5 - - 2 40.0% 25.0% 33.0% 25.0% - Yes No
Materials and Textiles Tenured 5 - - 2 40.0%
Materials and Textiles Non-Tenured - - - - -
College of Visual & Performing Arts Total 36 16 44.4 7 19.4%
Art Education Total 2 2 100.0% - - 57.0% 8.5% No No
Art Education Tenured 1 1 100.0% - -
Art Education Non-Tenured 1 1 100.0% - -
Art History Total 3 3 100.0% 1 33.3% 38.0% 12.0% - - No No
Art History Tenured 1 1 100.0% 1 33.3%
Art History Non-Tenured 2 2 100.0% - -
Artisanry Total 5 3 60.0% - - 52.0% 9.0% - 9.0% No Yes
Artisanry Tenured 5 3 60.0% - -
Artisanry Non-Tenured - - - - -
Design Total 12 5 41.7% 3 25.0% 52.0% 14.0% 10.3% - No No
Design Tenured 9 3 33.3% 3 33.3%
Design Non-Tenured 3 2 66.7% - -
Fine Arts Total 11 3 27.3% 1 9.1% 52.0% 14.0% 24.7% 4.9% Yes Yes
Fine Arts Tenured 11 3 27.3% 1 9.1%
Fine Arts Non-Tenured - - - - - -
Music Total 3 - - 2 66.7% 39.0% 11.0% 39.0% - Yes No
Music Tenured 1 - - - -
Music Non-Tenured 2 - - - -
College of Nursing Total 16 16 100.0% - -
Community Nursing Total 9 9 100.0% - - 95.0% 11.0% - 11.0% No Yes
Community Nursing Tenured 6 6 100.0% - -
Community Nursing Non-Tenured 3 3 100.0% - -
Adult and Child Nursing Total 7 7 100.0% - - 95.0% 11.0% - 11.0% No Yes
Adult and Child Nursing Tenured 5 5 100.0% - -
Adult and Child Nursing Non-Tenured 2 2 100.0% - -
SMAST Total 8 - - 1 12.5%
SMAST Tenured 6 - - 1 16.7% 23.0% 15.0% 23.0% - Yes No
SMAST Non-Tenured 2 - - - -
TABLE FOUR Non-Faculty Utilization
Persons of Color
- The detailed breakdown of the four groups among the top administrators shows improvement. Only one group underutilizes People of Color, Group B, the Deans. Next year, we will celebrate the addition of two minority hires among the Deans.
- The pattern is mixed among the Non-Faculty Professionals (associate and assistant directors, directors of smaller units or sub-units, and other professional staff). There is underutilization of Persons of Color among the categories for Education/Training, Library Services, and Technical categories.
- For Secretarial/clerical positions at UMass Dartmouth there is no underutilization of Persons of Color in any category.
Women
- The detailed breakdown of the four groups among the top administrators shows a challenging record. All four groups under-utilize Women. The position of the Chancellor is not reported in this analysis.
- In every category, the Non-Faculty Professionals show no underutilization of Women.
- For Secretarial/clerical positions at UMass Dartmouth there also is no underutilization of Women in any category.
Total # Fem # Fem % Min # Min % Fem % Min % Fem % Min % Fem Min
EEO-6 Category 1: Executive/Administrative/Managerial (EAM)
EAM A Provost/Vice Chancellors 6 1 16.7% 2 33.3% 59.4% 21.0% 42.7% - Yes No
EAM B Deans 7 2 28.6% - - 35.5% 15.0% 6.9% 15.0% Yes Yes
EAM C Associate Vice Chancellors 14 4 28.6% 4 28.6% 39.7% 24.6% 11.1% - Yes No
EAM D Major Directors 8 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 37.2% 20.7% 24.7% - Yes No
EEO - 6 Category 3: Faculty
EEO - 6 Category 3: Professional/Non-Faculty
Administrative 37 21 56.7% 8 21.6% 51.5% 14.3% - - No No
Education/Training 72 37 51.4% 8 11.1% 55.1% 16.0% 2.7% 4.9% No Yes
Institutional Relations 2
Library Sciences 12 9 75.0% - - 78.4% 11.1% 3.4% 11.3% No Yes
Research/Post Doctorates 56 23 41.1% 13 23.2% 48.3% 19.2% 7.2% - No No
Medical Care 6 6 100.0% 1 16.7% 89.0% 12.3% - - No No
Technical 71 39 54.9% 5 7.0% 50.0% 13.9% - 6.9% No Yes
Prof. Non-Faculty, Other 59 34 57.6% 9 15.2% 50.7% 15.9% - - No No
EEO-6 Category 4: Secretarial/Clerical
Administrative Support 85 81 95.3% 22 25.9% 91.6% 21.9% - - No No
Secretaries/Clerks/Typists 62 60 96.8% 14 22.6% 94.5% 14.3% - - No No
Data Entry Operators 12 11 91.7% 3 25.0% 76.6% 24.6% - - No No
Financial Records 4 4 100.0% 1 25.0% 76.7% 12.9% - - No No
Duplicating/Mail 11 1 9.1% 2 18.1% 4.5% 9.1% - - No No
Library 14 12 85.7% 3 21.4% 96.8% 22.6% 11.1% 1.2% No No
EEO-6 Category 5: Technical/Paraprofessional
Science & Other Technicians 17 6 35.3% 4 23.5% 48.7% 24.9% 13.4% 1.4% Yes No
Computer & Eng. Technician 6 - - - - 29.8% 22.0% 29.8% 22.0% Yes Yes
Fire and Safety Officers 18 1 5.5% 3 16.7% 6.9% 15.5% 1.4% - No No
Business & Related 1
Health Services 4 - - 1 25.0% 39.4% 14.0% 39.4% - Yes No
Protective Services 3 2 66.7% - - 43.5% 8.4% - 8.4% No Yes
EEO-6 Category 6: Skilled Crafts
Mech. & Repairers, Non-Suprv. 4 - - - - 4.2% 7.7% 4.2% 7.7% Yes Yes
Skilled Crafts, Suprv. 1 - - - - - - - - No No
Construction Trades, Non-Suprv. 26 2 7.7% 3 11.5% 11.4% 13.5% 3.7% 2.0% Yes No
Plant & Systems Operation 4 1 25.0% - - 2.4% 15.5% - - No Yes
EEO-6 Category 7: Service/Maintenance
Building Services, Non-Suprv. 82 32 39.0% 20 24.4% 28.6% 27.1% - 2.7% No No
Motor Vehicle Operators 1 - - - - - - - - - -
Guards, Institutional 9 1 11.1% 2 22.2% 60.0% 17.6% 48.9% - Yes Yes
Building Services, Suprv. 8 - - - - 29.3% 18.3% 29.3% 18.3% Yes Yes
* The position of the Chancellor is not included in this analysis. It is reported through the President's Office. Underutilization occurs when the workforce composition is less than 80% of the availability estimate and there is a one-person or greater shortfall in the respective job group. Data not reported for units with fewer than three employees.
