The Board of Trustees wants to know that there are procedures in place to ensure gender equity at the University of Illinois

Introduction

In November 1999, in response to a report issued by the Committee on the Status of Women at Urbana-Champaign, the Board of Trustees voted to review the status of women within the University. This review included students, faculty, Civil Service staff, and administrative/ professional staff. At the January 2000 meeting, the chair of the board assigned this review to the Chair of the Committee on Human Resources. Subsequently, the Chair asked the campuses and the University Administration to help her and two colleagues to understand the current environment for women, and the progress that has been made during the last five years in increasing numbers and levels of responsibility. This working group of the larger committee also asked about the impact of programs that have been implemented to address the issues of recruitment, retention, salary equity, and promotion.

This report summarizes the working group’s assessments of the progress and challenges of increasing representation and retention, as well as providing for salary equity on the campuses and in the University Administration.

Scope of Review

In assessing the status of women within the University and reviewing such issues as gender diversity and equity as well as identifying progress, challenges, and recommendations for improvement, the board members who conducted the review focused their examination in five areas. These areas were: recruitment of women faculty; retention and promotion rates for women faculty; leadership and professional development opportunities for women; climate; and salary equity. To assist in its review, this working group requested that the campuses provide data and other information relevant to an examination of the five areas and responsive to specific questions that were posed. The specific questions are included with this report as Appendix A. Quantitative data were provided in response to some questions, while narrative information was provided in response to others. The written responses to these questions were voluminous and very helpful to the board’s working group. The board members involved also met with small groups of faculty, staff, and administrators on the three campuses, and later conducted hearings on each campus to gather additional first-hand information. The information requested and provided as well as the campus discussions centered primarily on faculty and administration, although many of the comments are applicable to all women within the University.

The report is organized by campus and by observations in each of the five areas mentioned above. The observations take into account an analysis of the data and information gleaned from the interviews and campus hearings. An examination of the University Administration is also included in this report.

Principles Used in Interpreting Data

Numbers alone do not tell the whole story, and in some cases they can be misleading. Indeed, ideal data are typically nonexistent; and numbers alone may not convey or confirm gender equities or inequities. In an organization as large and complex as the University, it is easy to get confused and sometimes frustrated when seeking answers to even basic questions. On the other hand, that should not deter the board from looking at the data and interpreting the numbers as appropriate. As the board members experienced in this examination, data alone often only identify possible problem areas that require further examination in order to complete a review. Some specific data interpretation principles that guided this review are outlined below.

· Much of the numeric data were presented by discipline and for very good reasons. Disciplinary differences can skew campus and college averages and influence overall percentages. However, as the detail becomes finer, the number (n) of observations becomes smaller. Care must be taken to avoid conclusions when n is small.

o Specifically, the percent of faculty who are women varies with the mix of departments within a college or on a campus because of the differences in availability by discipline. Campuses and colleges with large departments in traditionally female fields will have a larger overall percentage of women. The percentage may also vary with the age and turnover of the faculty because of the relatively recent upswing in women seeking doctoral degrees. Campus and college level comparisons among institutions are thus not as revealing as analyses at the department level.

· Some general observations can be made by looking across disciplines and gauging the number of times a particular faculty rank mirrors or exceeds the expected pool. Benchmark data from peer institutions are also useful, but only as a descriptor. For example, if the percent of female professors is significantly below availability and the same disparity exists at peer institutions, then there may exist a bias within the discipline, a propensity for females in the discipline to choose career paths other than the academy, or other discipline specific explanations.

· Many administrators are recruited from the faculty ranks, and some committees are discipline specific; thus it is important to consider disciplinary mixes when reviewing women in leadership roles. However, some general observations can be made by using the proportion of women full professors as a benchmark.

· Tenure rates vary by discipline. While overall rates were provided, it is important to consider differences among disciplines. For instance, if engineering faculty are tenured at twice the rate of education faculty, then a campus average tenure rate for men might appear to be higher than that of women since the percentage of women is far greater in education than in engineering and the College of Engineering is much larger..

· Disciplinary differences in faculty salaries, with men predominant in higher-paid disciplines and women in the lower-paid disciplines, can skew the average salary when computed over the campus.

· The question of salary equity among administrators is a difficult one to evaluate. There are some cases where administrators hold unique titles and responsibilities and thus have no other individuals with whom to compare; and then there are other situations where several people all hold the same title yet the responsibilities are quite different. (A regression analysis was not executed, and therefore the validity of the findings lends itself to question.)

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO

Campus Discussions

In June 2000 Trustees O’Malley and Plummer met with a selection of faculty, staff, and administrators at the Chicago campus (UIC) to discuss these individuals’ perceptions of the status of women on that campus. This included officers and members of the Chancellor’s Committee on the Status of Women (CCSW), women deans, and the chancellor and provost of the campus.

The representatives of the CCSW presented a history of their committee’s activities in behalf of securing recognition and representation of women faculty and staff on campus since 1967. This included gaining campus support for several units on the campus to address the concerns of women, such as a child care center, a Woman’s Studies Program, and a Women’s Research and Resources Center. The faculty and staff members of the CCSW emphasized that persistence over three decades has brought about significant achievements to enhance the lives of women on campus. These individuals also stressed that the establishment of the east side of the Chicago campus in the mid-1960’s was important because there were few traditions in place to deter women from making suggestions to the administration for implementation of such programs as those listed above. They observed that this, together with the fact that the 1960’s were a time of ferment generally in higher education, and that there were more women being hired on faculties resulting in a critical mass of women in several disciplines, provided a climate for their recommendations to be heard.

With this background, women in all employee groups at the Chicago campus seem to believe that the campus administration is responsive to their concerns. The women faculty and staff interviewed did enumerate concerns they have, such as policies that would help women faculty manage childbearing and child care along with expectations for them as faculty members. They also were concerned about the growth of part-time faculty, most of whom are women. In addition they cited a problem in retaining talented women administrators at all levels and indicated that there seems to be little upward mobility possible at the campus for skillful and ambitious women administrators. They were pleased with the campus administration’s support of leadership training for women and of mentoring programs that are in place to assist women advance. They did suggest that the mentoring programs be institutionalized in the Office of the Provost to ensure continuity, and that more student mentoring be encouraged and formalized.

This group of women faculty and staff recommended regular, annual reviews of salaries for men and women faculty and staff. Certain programs and colleges were cited that were thought to merit review due to apparent gaps in salaries of men and women.

In discussions with women deans, the two trustees involved in this interview session asked the deans how salary equity was addressed. All deans indicated that they look for differences and explanations for these and then correct any inequities. They noted that scarce resources often make for difficulties in addressing inequities. These deans made the point that it is extremely important to maintain salary equity because of the competition for good faculty from other institutions. They also stressed the importance for colleges to have a plan for reviewing and making corrections in salaries. The deans further noted that there are indications of salary problems in certain colleges, but not all.

They all lauded Chancellor Sylvia Manning and former Provost Elizabeth Hoffman for their support of programs to address inequities based on gender and added that having more women deans of colleges on the campus, with 50% of the deans being women, creates a positive environment for women at all levels. They stated that the campus climate for women is very good, and cited the spousal hiring program as an example of a hospitable environment to dual-career couples and a help in recruiting both men and women faculty. However, all observed the lack of men or women of color in major administrative positions.

Later in a separate meeting, the chancellor, the provost, and the Associate Chancellor for Access and Equity, Patricia Gill, discussed strategies for recruiting and retaining women faculty and staff. The provost indicated that she stresses the import of attracting well-qualified women to faculty and administrative positions and that she tries to ensure balance among men and women appointees to search committees whenever possible. Ms. Gill reported that complaints of sexual harassment have been markedly reduced, and that recently there have been very few involving faculty. She attributed this to an improvement in the campus climate for women due to the presence of more women at all levels on campus.

Provost Hoffman reported that at UIC women are awarded tenure at a higher rate than men, but that they also tend to leave the campus in greater numbers. The chancellor noted that the pattern of women following spouses is still in effect, and that in some cases women are leaving for child bearing and child rearing reasons.

This group also reported that salary equity reviews are constant and that the colleges and the provost’s office share in funding equity adjustments. Provost Hoffman stated that she thought that all inequities, whether they be due to gender or to other reasons, would be eradicated by the constant attention to salary reviews.

Chancellor Manning commented on the importance of conducting exit interviews and said that this process was being made systematic and would be expected in the future. She also indicated that she was preparing a study of departures for the last five years in an effort to learn more about what changes in the campus climate were needed.

In general, the discussions at these meetings indicated that women faculty, staff, and administrators at the Chicago campus think they are supported and that there are opportunities for women at that campus. There are some concerns about women’s salaries, coupled with the belief that there are some colleges where salary equity for women is a problem.

On October 11, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon, the board held a public hearing on the status of women on the Chicago campus. The chancellor and the provost both made remarks at this hearing and twelve individuals from the campus representing faculty, staff, students, and administrators commented to the board on issues concerning women on the campus.

Chancellor Manning commented on losses to the faculty in the last several years and noted that in the face of these reductions to the faculty the number of women faculty has increased. She described special programs that provide management training for women who aspire to administrative positions and reported that the women faculty are tenured at the same rate as men on the faculty. She also told the board that some units on campus do not have women in sufficient numbers on the faculty, which would be numbers equal to national availability of women in the discipline. She stated that 55% of the undergraduate students are women, 59% of graduate students are women, and 50% of the students in the professional programs are women.

Faculty representatives offering remarks stressed the need for more readily available data on salaries, and on the factors that are considered in making salary decisions. Salary compression for long-term employees was cited as a problem on the campus generally.

Faculty also spoke of the need for policy evaluations concerning issues such as tenure rollbacks and sabbatical leaves, and the impact of these on faculty women’s careers. There were also comments about certain areas of the campus where women struggle for acceptance as faculty members and for considerations afforded faculty men.

An academic professional staff member commented on efforts to provide advancement opportunities for women on the staff who are not faculty. Women comprise 61% of this group. The individual described special efforts to gain acceptance of flex time for these employees, to encourage units to agree to look inside the institution for staff when opening new positions, and to provide opportunities for staff to pursue degrees at the University.

One person spoke to the need for more services to students who are victims of date violence and urged more training for the campus police in dealing with crimes of assault, domestic violence, and stalking.

The commentators had praise for the child-care provided on campus, but expressed the need for much more.

Generally, the tone of comments at this hearing was very positive, characterized by the remark of one commentator that “life is good for women at UIC.” Mentoring programs are well developed, and the staff members believe that these are helpful to them in the performance of their jobs. It was felt that the campus provides a caring environment.

Recruitment of Women Faculty

The data prepared by UIC showed that the percentage of women faculty in each rank compares favorably with other large universities. Among the nations 83 Research I Universities, UIC is well above average in female representation at all ranks. Progress has been most notable in the last five years. Such progress is commendable, especially since in the last five years, the total number of faculty has decreased by 6%.

Often progress is dependent on hiring opportunities; and in a period of reductions, opportunities are less frequent. Nevertheless, progress was made in most units, with significant college level increases in Architecture and the Arts, Public Health, and Social Work. No longer is Nursing the only college with over 50% female faculty; Education, Social Work, and the Library now also share that distinction.

Two engineering departments are the only UIC departments with more than 6 faculty that have no women faculty. With over 100 departments, that is a very low number and speaks well of the strong campus commitment to diversity. In addition, each year the Office of Access and Equity produces a report that provides the number of faculty by department and gender and includes the number of new hires that have been made during the past five years. The report also provides comparative national data for each discipline on Ph.D. production that can be compared by rank with the percentage representation of women in that rank and discipline. This report is reviewed with the deans and senior administrators. Over the last 14 years, UIC has hired 295 women assistant professors, which was 43% of the total assistant professor hires and well above that predicted by the availability pool.

Retention and Promotion Rates for Women Faculty

The seven-year data supplied by UIC suggest that the tenure experience achieved by women and men are quite close. After seven years, 38.4% of men and 35.3% of women are either tenured or still on the tenure track. It would perhaps be more useful to examine the tenured percents after nine years. This would allow for everyone to pass through the tenure track, taking into account that women generally take longer to gain tenure. The primary reason women take longer to gain tenure is their use of tenure rollbacks, the extension of the tenure track for professional or personal reasons, including parental responsibilities. Over the last decade, women received tenure rollbacks at more than twice the rate of men.

There do appear to be some differences in tenure rates in business administration and some LAS departments where the tenure rates seem noticeably higher for men than women, and also in pharmacy where the rate is much higher for women.

As mentioned in the overview, the campus has expressed a desire to continue expanding its mentoring efforts to support informal as well as formal programs to help faculty through the promotion and tenure process.

Leadership and the Development of Women

There is growing representation of women among administrators, particularly at the senior levels. In the last 5 years, the number of female deans doubled (4-8) and the number of female directors nearly doubled (34-64). Currently 44% of the deans and 42% of the directors are women. Approximately 16% of the department heads are female, which is just about equivalent to the representation of females at the full professor level. The campus expects to see an increase in the number of female heads as more females move through the promotion and tenure process.

Administrators are often recruited from the faculty ranks. The campus has a much higher percentage representation of women in senior academic positions than they do among full professors. Female representation at UIC compares quite favorably with the peers at the senior administrative level.

The overall representation of women serving on committees is strong at UIC. Over 43% of campus-wide committee members are female. Women represent 40% of the members on the college executive committees, 42% of the membership on the promotion and tenure committees, and 40% on search committees. It should also be noted that between 1991 and 1999, 141 searches for academic directors and heads resulted in 61 female hires. A woman chaired half of these searches. These numbers are much higher than the percentage of women full professors, which suggests a concerted effort to have women well represented. This also suggests that a higher burden of committee assignment falls to younger assistant and associate female professors.

The campus follows all university statutes related to the review of administrators at both the campus and college levels. Committees are convened by the chancellor and/or the provost for the purpose of formal review of senior administrators. Department heads and chairs and all deans are reviewed every five years. In the case of departmental leadership, the dean of the college is responsible for conducting the review. There are no formal policies that mandate the administrative evaluations to include the administrator’s performance in fostering the professional development of women; but the campus is clearly committed as evidenced by the many programs and workshops, some of which have been in place for several years.

Problem Resolution

There are mechanisms in place to resolve gender equity and climate problems. The campus has two elected committees to represent academic employees, the Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) and the Academic Professional Advisory Committee (APAC). These committees can be helpful in resolving all types of grievances and in making recommendation to the chancellor in such cases based on their findings. Both provide informal consultations and advice. Formal grievance procedures also exist.

The exit interview initiative has faltered over the past few years; but as noted in the campus discussion, the chancellor plans to reinvigorate efforts to conduct exit interviews for faculty and staff who leave UIC. An annual survey of the colleges is conducted to determine how many faculty receive outside offers and how many of those faculty accept the offers. However, this does not provide details on faculty decision-making, such as factors that influence the faculty member to leave or the elements of an outside offer that made it attractive.

Salary Equity

The campus does not currently have an in-depth faculty salary equity study to measure whether there are specific departments or disciplines where there are obvious disparities in salaries for women and men. Over the next year the campus plans to develop the means to conduct a thorough faculty salary equity study.

The campus does not currently have an in-depth administrator salary equity study. The question of salary equity among administrators is a difficult one to answer. There are some cases where administrators hold unique titles and thus have no other individuals with whom to compare, and then there are other situations where several people all hold the same title yet the responsibilities are quite different. While the campus has attempted to provide some sense of salary equity, it did not execute a regression analysis; therefore, the validity of the findings is questionable. Data suggest that in most cases, any gender differences in salaries appear to be due to the differences in the level and area of responsibility.

Recommendations

The reports of women interviewed on campus and those giving comments during the public hearing indicate that the environment on campus is positive for women and in most cases they believe they are supported. However, there appear to be some areas where little progress has been made in representation of women. The trustees involved with the review recommend that the campus examine these areas to ascertain the reasons for under representation, and to determine whether more can be done to increase the number of women faculty. Engineering appears to be an area where progress has been impeded as the data reported earlier show (two departments (chemical engineering, and civil and materials engineering have no female faculty and the college has only three women out of a total of 96 faculty members, or 3.1%. This is much lower than the availability pool would predict and also significantly lower than representation of women at peer institutions).

Further, the trustees recommend that:

· There be continued monitoring of recruiting in these units and ask that the chancellor discuss this situation with the provost.

· Since the appreciation for mentoring programs on campus is so great that expansion of the mentoring efforts on campus be considered with central monitoring.

· Given the concern about salary equity in some areas, and the comments of women faculty and administrators that salary compression is a very difficult problem in some units, particularly for women with long tenure, a systematic annual salary equity study be instituted. Faculty should be involved in the design of this.

· In view of the fact that exit interviews are not available to departing faculty and staff throughout campus, and are clearly seen as a method for gaining information about why faculty and staff leave the campus, exit interviews be made a regular part of campus practices in all units. The trustees believe that the information gleaned from such exchanges would justify the resources required.

· Deans and department heads be evaluated and rewarded accordingly as part of their annual reviews, for demonstrated success in recruiting, retaining, and developing the skills of women faculty and staff.

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT SPRINGFIELD

Campus Discussions

In August 2000, Trustees O’Malley, Plummer, and Glezen met with members of the Committee on the Status of University Women (CSUW), women administrators, and the chancellor, associate chancellor for access and equal opportunity, and associate provost to gather information about the status of women on the Springfield campus (UIS). The members of the CSUW explained that this committee is concerned with all constituencies of women on campus and that one of their recent projects was a comparison of salaries and promotions for women faculty for the last 15 years. They explained that this time frame was selected because it normally takes a faculty member that many years to be ready to apply for promotion to the rank of full professor.

The CSUW’s conclusion from their study is that too few women attain the rank of full professor. They also reported that women seem to leave the campus in greater numbers than men. The data indicated that men and women faculty leave in approximately equal numbers and that faculty turnover is low. The committee members noted that there are several units at the campus that have one or very few women faculty, and that this seems to create difficulties for women. They praised the campus administration for sending good messages about the importance of recruiting and retaining women faculty, and added that difficulties arise at lower administrative levels. They stressed the need for mentoring experiences for new women faculty and administrators because there are so few women in most units.

The role of the department head position was reviewed in the context of campus budgeting and other organizational issues related to communication. The committee members saw this role as key to solving problems for women faculty. The structural changes that have occurred in the last five years for this campus seem to be partly responsible for some problems at the campus. These changes were brought about when the campus joined the University of Illinois. An example of one of these changes is the demise of the faculty union. The members of CSUW stated that the climate differs from one college to another on campus, and that some good mentoring programs are in place, that seem to be helping newer women faculty learn the culture of the campus and ways in which they might be successful. These committee members had questions about the methods used for awarding non-instructional assignments that result in a course reduction for faculty, and the method of distributing departmental discretionary monies. The overriding concern of these individuals was salary equity. They believed that there were inequities in salaries between men and women on campus.

The trustees also interviewed women deans on campus and learned that the deans had questions about a recent regression analysis conducted to check for salary equity. One dean said that most inequities on campus are based on compression although she thought some are related to gender. They also explained that part of the problem in understanding salary equity studies at UIS is that the notion of merit-based salaries is new to that campus. In the past, the faculty union contract stipulated what salaries were to be following a negotiation process with the administration. With the exception of promotions, salaries were not merit-based. The trustees also learned that many of the policies that work quite well at the larger campuses, Chicago and Urbana-Champaign, are difficult to implement at Springfield due to the much smaller size of that campus. The deans contrasted past practices with newer ones recently introduced and pointed out that given the small size of the Springfield campus budgeting is logically centralized, thus making for a weak dean system. This, combined with the vestiges of the former system of a unionized faculty, makes it more difficult for deans to effect change or impose procedures. They cited retention of women faculty as a particular problem and noted that the campus climate, which they characterized as a kind of covert inhospitality to women faculty, seemed the problem. The trustees and the deans discussed particular colleges’ responses to women faculty and noted that the climate for women was poor in certain departments, but not all.

Some observed that there are two cultures at Springfield at present; that there are occasional clashes between these and that often new faculty are caught between the two groups. The deans discussed problems in recruiting faculty and noted that the teaching load of twelve hours per semester is higher than at many institutions, and that the salaries are not competitive. They also stated that as deans they are confined to the list of applicants supplied by the departmental search committee in all cases. Thus, they think they are limited in faculty recruitment efforts. The deans reported that they spend considerable time mentoring new faculty and trying to provide released time to new faculty to afford them time to do research and write for publications, but this is dependent upon concurrence from departmental chairs. From these conversations it appears that a change in the institutional priorities for faculty, to include an emphasis on research and publication, is at the root of many difficulties between newer faculty and more senior faculty.

An interview with Chancellor Lynn, Associate Provost Harry Berman, and Associate Chancellor for Access and Equal Opportunity Lawrence Johnson was useful in knitting together the other interviews because the campus-wide views of these individuals helped produce some overall themes.

It became clear that the campus is attempting to resolve some patterns of inequity for women in salaries and in assignments through efforts to provide special developmental opportunities such as leadership training programs. There was concern about women faculty who have left the campus and their experiences while on the campus. The associate chancellor is now interviewing women faculty who leave to try to determine if there are problems the administration should know of, and to introduce more accountability. The clash of cultures was confirmed by these administrators; and the chancellor noted that an evaluation of deans to include efforts to recruit, advance, and retain women faculty was to be introduced. She also described the changing role of the deans, which now includes more efforts to help faculty develop skills in teaching and research. The chancellor referred to the Women’s Center on campus, which she said was established to help women staff solve work-related problems, and which seems to have helped the climate on campus. All seem to agree that the small size of the Springfield campus adds to nearly all problems because every problem becomes well-known. The other major problem is one of resources; the chancellor observed that many of the campus’s problems would be solved with budgetary support to improve salaries and program support.

On December 6, 2000, from 9:30 until 10:30 a.m., the board held a public hearing on the status of women on the Springfield campus. Notices of the hearing, held in the Public Affairs Center on campus, were sent to all constituent groups on campus, with an invitation to them to send representatives to make remarks to the board. The campus newspaper carried a notice of the hearing with an invitation to the campus community to comment to the board on issues concerning women on campus. Five individuals notified the board that they wished to make comments. In addition, Chancellor Naomi Lynn and Provost Wayne Penn made remarks at the hearing.

Chancellor Lynn summarized the progress made on the campus in terms of improving the conditions for women faculty, students, staff, and administrators. She spoke of addressing past complaints of sexual harassment, and instituting special training sessions for supervisors and managers on the rights and responsibilities provided under the law in this area. She described the creation of the Women’s Center on campus that she initiated to provide a place where women can present problems and receive counseling and assistance in addressing these. She also noted that salaries for men and women faculty had been studied and problems ameliorated. She added that she hoped to recruit more women faculty in national searches now underway and that she would like to provide more mentoring, orientation, and professional development programs on campus for women faculty and staff. She indicated that she was aware of insensitivities in some units and said that in some cases individuals have been replaced by more sensitive and empathetic administrators. She said that she was proud that the campus environment was a secure, safe place and that she hoped it would become more supportive of women. She concluded her remarks by saying that the environment on campus is much more positive now than it was when she arrived and stated that now faculty, staff, and students have formal processes available for problem solving.

Provost Penn described the faculty salary equity review, a regression analysis, performed in the last year. He reported that years in faculty rank tended to determine salary, not gender. He noted that disparities were found in 26 cases (out of 156) and that 16 of these cases were men and 10 were women. He stated that the campus will continue to administer this study to correct discrepancies that may develop in time. He also observed that having comparable data from peer institutions will be a help in reviewing salaries at UIS.

Faculty members commented on concerns they had regarding the low number of women faculty, particularly at the full professor rank (with eight women being full professors including two planning retirement this year). They also commented on salary inequity for women, availability of research allowances for women faculty, and a grievance policy they did not support. These faculty members said they saw no way to discuss problems for women on campus other than by filing a discrimination grievance. They also criticized the climate of the campus, which they said is not supportive of women faculty in some quarters.

Women faculty also complained about being given heavier assignments in the departments, and being over-worked on committees because of the small number of women on the faculty and the need to have the committees representative. More faculty complained about the campus climate toward women, and one noted that racism and homophobia are also problems on campus. They stated that while the behavior in some units and among some middle level managers is not usually illegal, it is subtle and palpably inhospitable. One faculty member asserted that the climate remains unwelcoming to women on campus because of inattention at higher levels of administration. This faculty member alleged that a frequent outcome of the difficult work environment on campus is that women faculty often depart after a short stay on the campus, which is a loss to the campus. As stated above, the data indicate that men and women faculty tend to leave the campus in equal numbers and that turnover in the faculty is quite low. Faculty members also asked for exit interviews for faculty and staff. One faculty member recommended hiring administrators with proven track records of alleviating sexism.

An administrator reported on a survey of women on campus and stated that this revealed that respondents thought that there were too few women full professors on campus, as reported earlier, too few women of color on campus, and that the academic programs were too small for a critical mass of women to be recruited, hence women are often the “lone woman” faculty member in units resulting in isolation and little support. She added that the isolation of women in academic units sometimes seems to cause depression for the women. This individual opined that the small scale of the Springfield campus made it very difficult to adapt to the University of Illinois policies. She also lauded upper levels of administration for support of her efforts and for women faculty. (Chancellor Lynn has been given two awards from the Women’s Center on campus within the last year for her help to women on campus.) She advocated the protection of new women faculty from the environmental problems by providing stronger mentoring programs, and by offering more training programs to managers regarding sexual harassment and its consequences.

The one common theme in all remarks of faculty and staff was the need to make the campus environment more supportive of women.

Recruitment of Women Faculty

The number of female faculty has increased significantly (40-51) in the last five years. Most notably, between 1994 and 1999, the percentage of women assistant professors rose from 41% to 53%. Currently, 34% of the entire faculty is women. Due to the small number of total faculty and the handful of faculty in each discipline, percentage comparisons over time and across disciplines are difficult. Yet, taking the entire faculty as a group, the representation of women compares favorably with the national pool and with peer institutions.

Retention and Promotion Rates for Women Faculty

Tenure outcomes of men and women are remarkably similar. Of 54 faculty members hired in five cohorts, 27 (50%) were female. Of the 27, eighteen (67%) received tenure, which was identical to the number (18) and percent (67%) of males gaining tenure. In Fall 1999, 53% of the tenure track junior faculty were women. For the past six years, identical numbers of men and women faculty were hired, and their tenure experiences were identical. 66.7% of the men and 66.7% of the women had earned tenure.

Leadership and the Development of Women

The campus is particularly strong in female representation at the senior administrator level. Of the 25 senior administrators (chancellor, vice chancellors, deans, and directors of academic units), 11 (44%) are female.

The overall representation of women serving on committees is strong at UIS. The percentage of women serving on campus-wide committees is 37%. Women represent 35% of the members on the college executive committees and 60% of the members on the college personnel committees. This strength is also visible in the representation of women serving on search committees. Women represented 37% of total membership last year, and they represent 45% this year. One of the campus’s goals is to provide more development support to faculty in an equitable fashion.

Problem Resolution

The trustees were concerned about the small number of women who are currently full professors. Data showing the number of recent hires of women on the tenure track, now 53% is comforting since many of these women would be expected to advance to full professor in time.

Individual faculty and staff have a number of grievance processes available for faculty and staff to use for formal complaints. Sex discrimination or sexual harassment may be grieved through the Human Rights and Sexual Harassment policies of the campus. There are grievance procedures for all employee groups, including a general grievance procedure for faculty.

Salary Equity

The campus conducted an in-depth faculty salary equity study. Results of a multiple regression indicate that there are no significant differences between salaries of women faculty and men faculty. Subsequent information regarding this study explains the significance of correlations between discipline, rank, and years in rank. Gender per se is not associated with salary.

Given the small number of administrators at UIS, the campus could not conduct an in-depth salary equity study nor make simple comparisons in most areas. Nevertheless, the campus has identified at least one area where the disparity in salaries warrants further investigation.

Recommendations

The trustees realize the difficulties experienced by the Springfield campus in adapting to the University of Illinois administrative procedures, and the general problem of making the transition to a new set of policies and rules. We salute the campus for valiant attempts to make the needed changes.

The trustees think that the salary equity study needs to be explained to the faculty better. While there seems good evidence that the administrative studies of salaries demonstrate little or no inequity in salaries between men and women faculty, too many women faculty do not accept these data and the results of the analyses.

In addition, the trustees were impressed with the reduction in the number of complaints of sexual harassment in recent years, it seems that allegations of this occurring are sufficient to merit continued review and more efforts to alleviate any vestiges of this.

To address these problems, the trustees recommend that:

· Since there was concern expressed about salary equity, particularly that created by compression, the campus institute a systematic annual salary equity review procedure and that faculty be involved in the design of this procedure.

· Deans and department heads continue to be evaluated and rewarded accordingly, as a part of their annual reviews, for demonstrated success in recruiting, retaining, and developing the skills of women faculty and staff.

· Those administrators reporting to the chancellor continue to be evaluated in terms of demonstrated success in recruiting, retaining, and developing the skills of women administrators reporting to them.

· Training continue for those with supervisory responsibilities to apprise them of the illegality of, and consequences arising from, any form of sexual harassment, including permitting a hostile environment.

· Administrators avoid overloading the few women faculty and administrators at the campus with too many committee and service assignments.

· A system be instituted for exit interviews for departing faculty and staff as soon as possible.

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

Campus Discussions

As mentioned earlier, the working group of the Board of Trustees met in December 1999 with the vice president for academic affairs and discussed the kinds of data they desired to conduct their review. Soon thereafter they also responded to a request from the Chancellor’s Committee on the Status of Women (CCSW) at the Urbana-Champaign campus to meet with them. This meeting was seen as important because the CCSW’s study, that included many comments on salary equity at the Urbana-Champaign campus, was the reason the board became concerned about the question of whether salary equity was a current problem at the University. This in turn spawned the appointment of the board’s working group to review the status of women. It was well known that the CCSW had been working closely with the chancellor at Urbana-Champaign on the committee’s concerns, including different views on the methodology for the campus’s salary equity study. It was also known that this working relationship had been comfortable and supportive. However, the publication of the CCSW study had created a strain and had the effect of pitting one study against the other. In fact, the two studies report different data and are based on different sets of assumptions.

In February 2000, Trustees O’Malley, Plummer, and Neely met with members of the CCSW at Urbana-Champaign to discuss their study, and hear their concerns about the status of women on the campus. The CCSW explained that their study was underway when the study of inequities for women faculty at MIT was issued. The MIT study focused on salary equity for women and many more areas. The CCSW members interviewed indicated that the MIT study supported their results in that both found several inequities for women faculty.

The CCSW gave praise to the campus administration for efforts to recruit women faculty and stated that administrative efforts account for much of the growth in numbers of women faculty at the Urbana-Champaign campus. However, they found statistical salary gaps for women faculty in their comparisons with peer institutions. In particular they stated that the salary gap for men and women full professors was notable. They also pointed out that 30-35% of the faculty hired at junior levels are women, whereas 15% of the faculty at the senior level are women. They urged more aggressive recruiting of women at all levels. They also opined that one reason for the dominance of men in hiring at the senior levels is that most of these positions are endowed chairs, and these tend to be in male-dominated fields. They also stated that women account for only 10% of the faculty hired in the Faculty Excellence Program, a special program to increase numbers of outstanding faculty.

Other observations made by the CCSW members included the suggestion that money to replace faculty should go toward hiring more women faculty. They also criticized mentoring programs because of a lack of uniformity on campus but mentioned that the mentoring program for teaching conducted by the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences was quite useful. Further, CCSW members believe since the reasons for women faculty departing the Urbana-Champaign campus are not adequately known, they suggested that exit interviews, preferably conducted by an outside consultant, be instituted. Presumably these would either supplement or replace the exit survey administered each year by mail to departing faculty. They were critical of the salary equity study conducted by the chancellor’s office partly because not all of the faculty identified as underpaid received salary adjustments as a result of the survey, and partly because of their belief that the rule for adjustments was that the salary gap had to be at least 15% to trigger an adjustment. They also were critical of the salary grievance process. The CCSW members stated their view that the chancellor’s study did not take into account disciplinary differences, whereas their study did. However, in fact, the campus salary equity study does account for differences in disciplines; the CCSW’s study used averages over all disciplines. Information submitted to the working group by Associate Provost Livingstone who administers the campus salary equity study pointed out that “disciplinary differences in salaries are the most important factor in our model, accounting for approximately 90% of the variation in salaries at the assistant professor level.”

During this interview there was a discussion of climate on campus that included criticisms of the way the CCSW study was received, and their opinion that the tone of the criticism was unnecessarily negative. They also commented that in certain areas of the campus the climate is difficult for women faculty, and they referred specifically to some actual comments and communiqués concerning salary equity.

Following this meeting, the working group met with a small group of women deans. The deans had requested this meeting. These deans wanted to make it clear that they review salaries of all faculty very carefully, and that the overriding criterion for salary decisions for them is always merit. They remarked that the problem for salaries is one of compression, particularly at the Associate Professor and Professor ranks. The deans also concurred in stating that the climate is a difficulty in some areas. They described ways that they addressed this in their colleges, including having the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee of the college sit in on interviews with candidates for faculty positions. They reported some loss of faculty due to poor climate but also some successes where women faculty were retained and departmental situations improved. They also stated that the climate had improved in recent years. They agreed that deans were responsible for salary equity in their colleges, and supported accountability for this. They also pointed out the problems of many poor budget years in the late 1980’s and 1990’s that have contributed to a pattern of low salaries that now need to be addressed because new faculty are being hired at more competitive salaries.

In explaining climate problems, the deans also noted that there is some anecdotal evidence that some male students sometimes behave negatively in making distinctions between men and women faculty. While this behavior frequently is corrected as the students proceed with their academic careers here, these early distinctions can result in negative treatment of women faculty by some male students. All of the deans commented that women and minority faculty are overworked on committee assignments, due to the need for representation on committees. All reported having mentoring programs of some type in their colleges.

Following the meeting with the deans, the trustees met with Chancellor Michael Aiken who assured them that there are annual evaluations of deans on their performance, including evaluation of recruitment, retention, and equitable treatment of women. In addition, he indicated no surprise that many thought that there were problems related to climate at the campus, especially in some nonacademic units. He indicated that inhospitable treatment in any area of the campus is definitely discouraged, and that he is doing all in his power to change such behavior as quickly as possible.

In March 2000, Trustees O’Malley and Plummer met with Provost Richard Herman and the Associate Provost and Director of Management Information Dr. Carol Livingstone. Dr. Livingstone described the process involved in the salary equity review at the campus. Provost Herman described the five-year review process for deans at the campus, noting that each dean is sent a memo by the provost with goals for performance including increasing diversity on campus. The provost also described the evaluation of the individual department heads by the deans and gave assurance that increasing diversity is a general goal for all administrators. He noted that mentoring programs were desired particularly by women faculty, and that these were important for the campus. He and Dr. Livingstone agreed that salaries for both men and women faculty at the campus, compared to the two United States coasts, are too low and are in need of augmentation. There appeared to be agreement that there are climate issues, that examples of intemperate statements have contributed to heighten feelings among some women faculty, and that change is too slow, even though the data do illustrate that women have made considerable gains on campus. The CCSW, the chancellor, the provost, and Dr. Livingstone agree that different data are used for the two salary equity studies (the chancellor’s study and the CCSW study), and that while questions about how to gauge salary equity most accurately are important, the overriding concern is that women’s salaries be equitable and that the treatment of women on campus be fair. These individuals recognized that some units have not been successful in addressing the concerns of women faculty; but the point was made that recruiting, developing, and retaining women faculty and other staff is a metric used to measure performance of deans and other administrators.

As the trustees assessed the information gleaned from these various sources it seemed evident that although salary equity is the reported problem for women on the campus, of equal importance was the perception by some women that there are units on the campus that are inhospitable toward women. Several individuals interviewed stated that similar treatment is accorded minority faculty and staff.

The board held a public hearing on the status of women on the Urbana-Champaign campus on September 15, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Trustee O’Malley chaired this for the board. Both Chancellor Aiken and Provost Herman made comments about the steps the campus had taken to ensure equitable treatment for women in all groups of employees and for students at the campus, and discussed various special programs that have been initiated to address concerns of women on campus. The chancellor and the provost assured the board that the campus administration has been working on the concerns raised in the CCSW report, and on the climate issues raised by some women. The campus commitment is borne out by the initiatives led by the chancellor and the provost. The formal salary equity study, instituted by the chancellor during his first year, has resulted in numerous equity adjustments for women faculty members. The increase in the number of women faculty relative to men may well be due to the faculty status report, also initiated by the chancellor in his first year. The Campus Conduct program, aimed at prevention of harassment and discrimination, was implemented in January 2000. This program, led by the provost and described later in this report, grew out of recommendations from the Sexual Harassment Task Force, appointed by the chancellor in 1997. The expansion of the Child Development Laboratory, the first increase in campus child care in decades was also initiated by the provost early in his tenure here, and was approved by the Board of Trustees in January 2000. The Task Force on Gender Equity, appointed by the provost last year, is looking at innovative ways to improve compensation, recruitment, and retention of women faculty and academic staff. The campus leadership also remains committed to continuous improvements in existing processes and policies that have an impact on women on the campus, such as the new sexual harassment and discrimination investigation procedures, implemented in 1998; and the spousal hire program, initiated in 1987 and institutionalized at Urbana in 1990, which has been a significant factor in recruiting academically talented couples to the campus.

Seventeen individuals representing faculty, staff, students, and leaders of constituent groups also addressed the trustees on issues concerning women on the campus. There were a number of subjects that were mentioned by several of the commentators during this hearing. Included among these were: a need for affordable, high quality child care; too few women at the full professor rank; the problem of retaining women faculty; inadequate mentoring in some units; isolation of some women faculty in units with few women; salary equity problems; a need for more family-friendly policies particularly regarding child-bearing and child-rearing responsibilities for women faculty, staff, and students at the University; the need for exit interviews of faculty who leave the campus; more security on campus; a need for 24 hours per day counseling for victims of rape and other forms of sexual abuse; a need for more discipline for those who abuse women; more channels for women to register complaints of sexual harassment; too few assistantships and fellowships awarded to women; and more affordable health insurance for graduate students. Several speakers also noted that the climate for women graduate students and faculty was not hospitable and that a change in behavior of middle level managers at the unit level was needed.

A few speakers reported that the campus had become a more hospitable setting for women faculty and administrators in the last two decades, and that issues of equity had been addressed and were being pursued at present. Also, there were reports from some faculty that administrative roles for women were being encouraged, and that the number of women in such positions had increased notably in recent years.

Recruitment of Women Faculty

In analyzing the data, the trustees in the working group conclude that progress is clearly apparent, as evidenced by the number and percent increase in women faculty with some areas (education, community health, sociology, library and information science, and psychology) showing significant gains in recent years. The College of Education faculty is now 50% female, up from 38% five years ago.

On the other hand, there remain some areas where little progress has occurred, areas that detract from an otherwise strong campus commitment to gender diversity. The campus has identified 14 departments that have fewer female faculty than the availability statistics predict. Most notably six units (Agricultural Engineering; Finance; Nuclear Engineering; Ecology, Ethology, and Evolution; and Geography) have no female faculty members. There may be acceptable explanations for some of these disparities, and further review is needed. One such area is Chemical Sciences. There are 64 faculty members in Biochemistry, Chemistry, and Chemical Engineering; and only 7 are females. This has a national availability at the assistant professor level of 40%, 27%, and 16%, respectively. The three units have a total of 13 assistant professors, 12 are male. Hiring patterns in chemical sciences at peer institutions come close to the availability predictions. The working group of trustees applauds the campus’s plans to closely examine the hiring patterns of these and the other units that have been identified. These areas need a closer examination to determine the reasons for under representation, and to develop strategies for increasing female representation. (Note: The working group has been informed that Ecology, Ethology and Evolution, now Animal Biology, added two women in 1999-2000 and has hired another, for a total of 3 women faculty of 11 FTE as of fall 2001. Geography expects to add two women in fall 2001 for a total of 2 women faculty of 13.25 FTE. There is one woman in Biochemistry who is not reflected in departmental statistics because the funding source is the College of Medicine.)

Overall, the campus is on the right path toward gender diversity among the faculty. The campus has experienced a decline in the number of faculty, and the overall reduction appears to have been accomplished largely through the attrition of male faculty. In addition, there have been some significant gains in recent years and there are some problem areas the campus has already identified for special review. The increases of female representation in recent years are especially commendable in an environment of limited budgets and faculty decline. The campus now has the resources to expand the faculty and should be able to make even more significant gains in female representation in the years ahead.

Retention and Promotion Rates for Women Faculty

Tenure rates vary by discipline but as a whole, the tenure rate for men is 58.1% and for women is 52.1%. While these differences are not statistically significant, there is enough difference to merit closer examination. Within broad disciplinary areas, rates vary by gender, with women having a higher or equal tenure rate in most areas. The campus identified two disciplinary areas (Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science; and Library and Information Science) that showed a significant difference and will examine the tenure practices in those units more closely. The other units that should be reviewed are Commerce and Business Administration and Labor and Industrial Relations; in this area the tenure rates for men (34%) and women (13%) also appear considerably different.

From the time they begin as assistant professors, UIUC females, on average, take longer to achieve tenure than their male colleagues. Most of the dissimilarity is the result of requests for tenure rollbacks, the extension of the tenure track for professional or personal reasons including parental responsibilities. Over the last decade, women received tenure rollbacks at twice the rate of men.

As mentioned several times in the interviews conducted by the trustees and at the board hearing, two retention issues loom large. One area is the unusually heavy demand for female assistant professors to serve on department and college committees. It was argued that women spend far greater time on committee assignments, and thus do not have as much time to spend on their teaching and research. As will be shown later in this report, the percent of females serving on committees well exceeds the percent of the faculty who are female. Furthermore, since only 25% of female faculty are full professors (compared to over 50% for males), the burden of committee assignments frequently falls more heavily on the junior female assistant and associate professors.

On the other hand, it is important for the governance structure to reflect diversity. Herein lies the dilemma, a quandary that is also true for the minority faculty. As long as there is under-representation, there will be the problem of deciding the degree to which underrepresented faculty are expected to participate in the governance process at the expense of their other responsibilities. This is a situation with no simple remedies. Assuming that the highest priority for our faculty is their individual advancement, then there may have to be a compromise on the number of women and minority faculty on committees.

The other area mentioned was the concept of mentoring. Here there are mixed signals. Some expressed a view that female faculty often felt isolated and that a mentoring program would help young faculty develop their research program and teaching skills. Conversely, others felt that they did not want special treatment for it stereotyped them as being inferior and in need of special help.

Leadership and the Development of Women

There has been a significant increase of women in administrative positions. Progress is quite apparent in the college and department units at Urbana-Champaign as evidenced by the increase of women at nearly all levels. The most significant gains have been at the middle management levels in positions staffed by academic professionals.

Perhaps the most influential administrators at any university are the deans and academic department heads/chairs. The number of female deans (colleges and institutes) has doubled (three to six) in recent years, a very laudable accomplishment. A career path for faculty wishing to move into administration normally begins as department head/chair. Thirteen percent of department heads and chairs are female, which is just about equivalent to the representation of females at the full professor rank. Most department heads/chairs are chosen from among the current faculty; thus opportunities for diversity are often dependent on the diversity of the full professors in the department. The campus expects to see an increase in female department heads/chairs as the number of women full professors increases. This will be very important to monitor in the years ahead.

As mentioned earlier, the overall representation of women serving on committees at Urbana-Champaign is fairly strong. The percent of women serving on campus-wide committees is 36%. Women represent 42% of the members on the college executive committees and 37% of the membership on the promotion and tenure committees. Both of these numbers are much higher than the percent of women full professors, which suggests a concerted effort to have women well-represented. It also could mean, as noted earlier, that as junior female faculty members are being recruited for committee service, such service may be at the expense of their academic progress.

Problem Resolution

There are a number of avenues that faculty and staff can take to address gender equity and climate problems, ranging from informal problem solving to formal grievance procedures. As noted earlier, in 1997 the campus undertook a comprehensive review of its grievance procedures and made a number of improvements as a result. However, the campus believes that this is an area for continued attention. The campus plans to have department heads report all salary equity grievances to the provost’s office even when these are resolved satisfactorily at the unit level. The campus also sponsors programs to address climate issues. The most recent example is the Campus Conduct program, mentioned earlier, which is a comprehensive discrimination and harassment prevention program developed by a faculty/staff committee that was appointed by the provost two years ago. The program includes: information materials designed to heighten awareness of discriminatory and harassing conduct and to encourage faculty, staff, and students to seek information and assistance; an anonymous web information service; a confidential telephone advisory service; and a departmental education program.

The campus has conducted an exit study of faculty who leave for reasons other than retirement and failure to achieve tenure. The study does not ask respondents for their gender but where possible the provost’s office plans to follow-up each negative comment related to climate with the appropriate executive officer. In addition, the campus plans to ask for both gender and race in all future exit studies.

Salary Equity

Beginning with his arrival in 1994, Chancellor Aiken implemented in-depth faculty salary equity reviews, building on the existing long-standing annual review process for all faculty salaries. Deans are instructed to explain all salaries that are below the projected level and to make salary adjustments where warranted. The provost personally receives all explanations and monitors the subsequent adjustments. This faculty salary equity review has been carried out in six of the last eight years. And two years ago, the campus made a commitment to conduct this study annually.

The campus does not currently have an in-depth salary equity study for administrators mainly because the question of salary equity among administrators is a difficult one to address on a campus wide basis across very different colleges and departments. There are some cases where administrators hold unique titles and thus there are no other individuals for comparison, and then there are other situations where several people all hold the same title yet the responsibilities are quite different. While the campus has attempted to provide reviews for administrators salary equity, it did not execute a systematic analysis. It is important to note, however, that salaries of all administrators are reviewed annually. Data suggest that in most cases, any gender differences in salaries appear to be due to the differences in the size of the unit administered (and/or the areas of responsibility). The campus has plans to give further attention to the analysis of administrators’ salaries.

Recommendations

The trustees were pleased with the growth in the number of women faculty and administrators, and impressed with efforts to address salary equity on the campus. However, the comments about the climate for women on the campus are of concern. The trustees realize that some colleges on the campus have traditionally been nearly all male and that while the representation of women is much greater today than even ten years ago, the behavior of some faculty, students, and others within these colleges is reported to be inhospitable toward women. Discussion with women on campus and letters from men and women provide anecdotal reports of instances of sexism and sexual harassment. The trustees realize that in a setting of the size of this campus such situations are inevitable, and that the best and most responsive procedures cannot always function as quickly as desirable. However, we believe that there is need for more alacrity and more thoroughness in investigating complaints of sexual harassment. We also were provided examples of letters and notes sent to women that showed resentment toward any attempt to redress their concerns. This behavior ought not be tolerated, and we are assured that the administration acts aggressively to correct such problems when they are brought to the attention of the campus. In addition, the campus has clearly conveyed messages that retaliation following complaints will not be tolerated.

Further, we heard from some students that security on campus for women is a concern, and that the counseling offered those women who are victims of sexual assault or violence is not adequate. We realize that ensuring safety on a campus the size of the Urbana-Champaign campus is a daunting challenge and strongly urge continued vigilance.

As we have heard in other venues, many women want the campus to assist in providing more child care of high quality.

As a way of addressing the most serious issues concerning the status of women on this campus, the trustees recommend that:

· The campus continue to conduct a systematic, annually administered salary equity study of salaries paid men and women faculty and administrators at the campus level and continue to review the results at the college, department, levels. Faculty should participate as appropriate in any proposed reviews of the methodology and should be involved in the development of recommendations about best ways to follow up on the results of the analysis.

· As a part of the campus’s responsibility centered management program, the campus should review the current process to determine its effectiveness as a tool to evaluate and reward deans and department heads for their success in recruiting, retaining, and developing the skills of women faculty and staff, and make changes as appropriate.

· A system be instituted for exit interviews for all departing faculty and academic staff. We realize this will require time. We know that exit interviews are currently in place for Civil Service staff.

· The services offered on campus for counseling of women who are victims of sexual assault or violence should continue to be reviewed.

· Reviews of campus security measures, particularly as they apply to women, should continue.

· Training should be continued for supervisors about the seriousness of engaging in or tolerating sexual harassment in the work place, and their responsibility to intervene or prevent such behavior.

· Current child-care provisions be evaluated to determine how the campus might assist in providing more high quality child care for faculty and staff.

· Increased attention should be paid to providing mentoring experiences and leadership training for women on campus. This should be combined with continued attempts to identify women for administrative and managerial positions on campus.

UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION

Overview

University Administration (UA) staff members are a part of the three campus communities, and are included in some campus committees such as CCSW. Thus several of the topics discussed in campus meetings, an example being child care, apply to UA.

Leadership and the Development of Women

Female representation among administrators in UA is fairly strong. Nearly 30% of the senior administrators (top two levels) are women. At the levels just below senior, 20% of the assistant executives and 38% of the junior executives are female. There is growing representation of women among administrators as evidenced by the increase of women at nearly all levels. Improvement is most evident in Business and Finance units, where 11 women and 28 men serve in 1999, compared to 5 women and 25 men in 1994. We recognize that there is more opportunity for increased representation when a unit is expanding. On the surface there appears to be some disparity in a few categories, but the number of administrators is often so small that these differences are not meaningful.

Women are fairly well represented on committees. The overall percent of female representation on major committees is one-third, with seven of the fifteen committees having at least that number. It should be noted that campus representatives account for most of the membership in nearly all University Administration committees. Representation of women ranged from 7% (Business Administration/Human Resources Management Team) to 94% (University Professional Personnel Advisory Committee). The overall percentage of women serving on the nine major search committees in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 was 37.3%. Five of the nine had at least one-third women, but the other four had less than 25%. Seven searches were successful during this time, resulting in three female hires.

Little comparable data exist on system-level administrators whose responsibilities are comparable to the University Administration personnel included in this study. Data suggest that female representation in the UA is generally consistent with other institutions. Small numbers may account for pockets of vulnerability.

Most of the campus professional development programs are available to UA staff, and informal mentoring programs exist for the development of women administrators. Supervisors bear responsibility for mentoring both female and male employees. Formal review processes are conducted by supervisors, focusing on performance relative to goals that encourage professional development.

Problem Resolution

Formal mechanisms exist for faculty and staff to resolve gender equity and climate problems, generally through the campus procedures where the UA staff member is located. Salary equity complaints can be redressed within the unit before formal steps must be taken.

No female administrators left the University Administration in the last five years except to take campus positions. The University Administration does not conduct formal exit interviews, but will develop a separate procedure for these.

Salary Equity

The University Administration does not currently have an in-depth administrator salary equity study. Data suggest that in most cases, any gender differences in salaries appear to be due to the differences in the level of responsibility as it relates to the area of expertise and/or the number of people reporting to the administrator. More analysis is required in this area.

Recommendations

Since all of the University Administration faculty and staff are identified with one of the two larger campuses by virtue of the venue of their assignment the trustees recommend that all of the recommendations mentioned above that apply to individuals at the Chicago and Urbana-Champaign campuses be applicable to faculty and staff within University Administration.

It is further recommended that:

University Administration take responsibility for providing for some of the services and reviews recommended for the campuses that obviously would need to be provided close to the unit, such as evaluation of administrators according to success in recruiting, retaining, and developing women. Also, we would expect the University Administration to provide for exit interviews of faculty and staff who leave this sector of the University.

Mentoring and leadership training be provided for women staff in this part of the University, as we have suggested for women on the campuses.

As the campuses explore ways in which they might assist in providing more high quality child-care, the needs of individuals in University Administration also be considered.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONS POSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES COMMITTEE

Question 1.

Provide a census profile of women faculty by academic department and rank. Include data for the 1994-95 and 1999-00 academic years and the percent change. For each department also provide information on the national pool of prospective women faculty. Recent data, such as the percentage of women Ph.D.s granted or percentage of women graduate students registered in relevant doctoral or terminal degree programs at the leading universities, would be most helpful.

Question 2.

Provide information on the promotion success rates for women junior faculty during the past five years. What percentages of women assistant professors have been promoted and granted tenure, have left the university, or are still on the faculty but have not yet been promoted? How do these statistics compare to those for men?

Question 3.

Provide a census profile of women professional staff by college and campus. Include data for department heads and higher level positions for the 1994-95 and 1999-00 academic years and the percent change. We are also interested in data on those who carry the title of associate or assistant head, dean, vice chancellor, or chancellor.

Question 4.

Provide a census profile of women’s membership on major college and campus committees. We are particularly interested in the composition and leadership of search committees for department, college, and campus administrators.

Question 5.

What are the guidelines for the review of administrators as related to the development of women? How and by whom is the performance of department heads, deans, and other major campus administrators assessed?

Question 6.

Provide a comparison of the current salaries for women faculty and administrators with their male counterparts. We recognize salaries depend on many factors such as discipline, experience, time-in-rank, responsibilities and performance. Identify obvious disparities and describe how they are being addressed.

Question 7.

What mechanisms exist for faculty and staff to resolve gender equity and climate problems?

Question 8.

Provide any information you have on the reasons women faculty and administrators have left your campus. What is the role of exit interviews? Have interviews identified any problems with the climate for women on your campus? If so, how have these problems been addressed?

Question 9.

We would like to compare the data you provide on the numbers (percentages) of women faculty and professional staff with appropriate benchmarks. Please provide the benchmark data that you believe are most relevant for your campus.

TABLE OF CONTENTS