Upload
sheila-davis
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Using EAP to Look at Relative Staffing Levels --
Potential and Pitfalls
Lou McClelland and Robert Stubbs
University of Colorado at Boulder
February 6, 2006, AAUDE
2
Who wants the comparisons?
Staff – Are we over or under-staffed relative to peers?
Regents, administration – Can we Plead poverty, need for more? Reduce staff and still be in line?
Legislators, public
3
Issues in comparison
Data source – EAP Numerator
Full-time, all, or FTE? Which subgroups?
Denominator – Per what? Student FTE, research dollars, ??
Which peers – AAU US public
4
Data source – EAPEmployees by assigned position
IPEDS winter submission Now driver of all HR surveys Employees as of 11/1, by
Full-time vs. part-time Medical vs. not – We excluded all medical 10 “primary function/occupational activity” Tenured, tenure-track, “faculty status not on
tenure track,” w/o faculty status – not fully crossed with functions
5
EAP matrix – With Colorado row numbers and column letters
28 valid cells
With faculty status D: Without faculty status
A: Tenured B: Ten track C: Not TTT
1 Instruction 1A 1B 1C 1D
2 IRPS 2A 2B 2C 2D
3 Research 3A 3B 3C 3D
4 Public service 4A 4B 4C 4D
5 Exec/admin/mgt 5A 5B 5C 5D
6 Other profession’l 6A 6B 6C 6D
7 Tech/paraprof
Not valid
Grad assistants: Col E, part-time only, excluded
7D
8 Clerical/sec 8D
9 Skilled crafts 9D
10 Srv/maint 10D
6
Numerator
Full-time, all, or FTE? Used FTE = Full-time plus 1/3 part-time Retains all data, easy, sensible to
audience, used in Data Feedback Report Which subgroups?
Comparisons using the 28 individual cells depend on comparable classification methods across institutions
Check this
7
Checking cells in the matrix
Used EAP 2005, with fall 2004 data Results very similar for EAP 2004
Check raw distribution of counts over 34 institutions for 28 cells
Only 5 of 28 cells have 10+ FTE for every institution
8
Cells where every school reported 10+
Total FTE
With faculty status D: Without faculty status
A: Tenured B: Ten track C: Not TTT
1 Instruction 1A 1B 1C 1D
2 IRPS 2A 2B 2C 2D
3 Research 3A 3B 3C 3D
4 Public service 4A 4B 4C 4D
5 Exec/admin/mgt 5A 5B 5C 5D almost
6 Other profession’l 6A 6B 6C 6D
7 Tech/paraprof
Not valid
7D
8 Clerical/sec 8D
9 Skilled crafts 9D
10 Srv/maint 10D
9
Check for paired columns or rows
Every school has TTT – tenured and tenure-track faculty, columns A+B, minimum 600
Look at distribution of counts over rows 1-6
Institutions still reporting most TTT as Row 1: Instruction or Row 2: IRPS, Instruction, research, public
service
10
# TTT row 2 (IRPS) x # TTT row 1 (instr)Clearly must combine rows 1 and 2
11
Also not comparable for TTT in row 5:Exec, admin, management
CO, NC, NE, IA, FL reported > 10% 13 schools reported none
AZ, all UC, MI, Buffalo, OR, Pitt, Penn St, TX A&M
Suspect reporting practice or local terminology, not reality, is the difference
Does it matter? It does in the IPEDS Data Feedback Report
(DFR)
12
DFR Fig. 11 - % of FTE professional staff by assigned position
Exec/admin->
13
Categorizations matter in the DFR
DFR lists pct of FTE in each of rows 1-6 Not number per SFTE Easy to misread – follows per-student-FTE figures
Row 5: Exec-admin-mgt Peer median 6% Colorado 14% We said: At other schools, tenured deans etc. are
not in Row 5, so cannot compare this percentage
14
Do public AAU’s have research staff?
Row 3 is research: Columns A B C D Sum of the columns, row 3
Zero: 10 schools Over 1,000: 3 schools (Berkeley, CO, MD)
And, those reported in row 3 may be TTT, Columns A/B Faculty status not TTT, Column C Without faculty status, Column D
15
Keep combining to fix – Get 3 ultimate subgroups
With faculty status D: Without faculty status
A: Tenured B: Ten track C: Not TTT
1 Instruction 1A 1B 1C 1D
2 IRPS 2A 2B 2C 2D
3 Research 3A 3B 3C 3D
4 Public service 4A 4B 4C 4D
5 Exec/admin/mgt 5A 5B 5C 5D
6 Other profession’l 6A 6B 6C 6D
7 Tech/paraprof Pink: TTT (col A, B)
Blue: All other professionals (1-6 C/D)
Yellow: Tech, clerical, skilled, service/maintenance – non-professional (rows 7-10)
7D
8 Clerical/sec 8D
9 Skilled crafts 9D
10 Srv/maint 10D
16
Examine the 3 subgroups
All schools have counts in all groups Average count about
TTT: 1500 Other professional: 4000 Non-professional: 3000
Schools with more in one subgroup generally have more in all subgroups Correlations across 34 schools 70-80 Plots show few obvious outliers
17
Other professional (vertical) vs. TTT (horizontal)
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,600
Related but different. Far right: Florida. Top: Ohio State
18
The numerator at last
Staff FTE Excluding grad assistants
For total plus three subgroups TTT Tenured and tenure track All professional staff not TTT Tech, clerical, skilled crafts, service,
maintenance -- Non-professional
19
The denominator!
Staff per what? Must normalize for size somehow
What sensibly relates? Student FTE Research dollars Student or degree mix
Student FTE alone seems insufficient So try multiple predictors
20
Predicting staff total and subgroup FTE
AAU publics Without Pitt, Rutgers, Penn State (FASB so no $) Without schools with medical N = 13, model without Colorado
Predictors Student FTE Research expenditures Pct of degrees that are doctorates
Correlates .80 with research $$ so proxies Land grant
21
Predictor combinations that work
TTT = SFTE + land grant Other professional =
SFTE + %doc – land grant Non-professional = SFTE Total = SFTE + %doc All R-squared .80-.91
22
Actual and predicted totals by student FTE
CU
Actual
Predicted
23
Punch line for Colorado
CU staff FTE, pct different from predicted -11% for TTT +2% for other professional -29% for non-professional -7 to -12% overall – 440 to 780 < predicted
These may make sense Cut the TTT last Many other professional paid with research $$
24
EAP and relative staffing levels Pitfalls
Fine categorizations definitely not comparable Three subgroups may not be either
Potential Available for all institutions Can readily see some of the incomparabilities Analyses like this show others
But will there be any schools left if eliminate all? Probably related to reality Better than nothing