Recruiting benchmarks survey_report

RecruitingBenchmarks Survey Report Key Measures for College Recruiting

$160 NACE Member / $260 Nonmember Price

2 |

2013

National Association of Colleges and Employers

2 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and Employers National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 3

Introduction

College Relations and Recruiting Departments ............................................................................... 6 The Scope of College Recruiting Figure 1: Scope of college recruiting

Department Structure

Staff Salaries

College Recruiting Programs: What Matters Most ........................................................................ 17 Aspects of the College Recruiting Program Figure 17: Aspects of college recruiting – importance ratings Branding Techniques Figure 18: Branding techniques – use rate Figure 19: Percentage of respondents rating branding technique as highly effective

Recruiting: Operational Details .................................................................................................. 21 Target School Selection Figure 20: Types of colleges/universities at which employers recruited Figure 21: Selection criteria for target schools Figure 22: Target school criteria and offer rate Recruiters and College Career Services Figure 23: Campus resources in recruiting

TABLE OF CONTENTS

National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 3

Evaluating On-Campus Programs Figure 24: Timeframe for conducting evaluations of on-campus relationships Figure 25: Methods used to conduct campus evaluations Career Fairs Figure 26: Career fairs, by size of company On-Campus Interviews Figure 27: On-campus interviews, by percent of hires Figure 28: On-campus interviews and hiring, by industry Technical Applications Used in College Recruiting Figure 29: Technical applications – use and effectiveness

The Hiring Process ................................................................................................................... 29 Cycle Time Figure 30: Time from interview to offer in days (2008-2012) Figure 31: Time from interview to offer in days, by industry Figure 32: Time provided from offer to acceptance in days, by industry Offers and Acceptances Figure 33: Offer rate trend (2008-2012) Figure 34: Offer rate, by industry Figure 35: Acceptance rate by industry

Diversity Recruiting .................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 36: Percentage of firms with diversity effort (2008-2012) Figure 37: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by region Figure 38: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by size of company Figure 39: Populations targeted for diversity recruiting, 2012 vs. 2011 Figure 40: Hiring results by diversity populations Figure 41: Hiring goals for 2013, by diversity populations Figure 42: Targets for diversity recruiting

The New Hire Candidate Retention Figure 43: One-year retention rates, by industry Figure 44: One-year retention rates, by size of company Figure 45: Five-year retention rates, by industry Figure 46: Five-year retention rates, by size of company Rotational Programs Figure 47: Rotational programs, by size of company Figure 48: Rotational programs, by industry Figure 49: Percent of new recruits involved in rotational programs, by size of company Figure 50: Rotational structures Figure 51: Overall duration of rotational program Figure 52: Overall duration of rotational segments

Summary

Appendix

Respondent Demographics Figure 53: Respondents, by industry Figure 54: Respondents, by region Figure 55: Respondents, by size of company Participating Firms


INTRODUCTIONThe 2012 Recruiting Benchmarks Survey was conducted June 15, 2012, through August 15, 2012, among NACE employer-member organizations. A total of 242 organizations, or 25 percent, took part. (Respondent demographics and a list of participating organizations are provided in the Appendix.)

This annual survey examines key aspects of college recruiting, including how efforts are organized, staffed, focused, and carried out, as well as benchmarks and metrics related to efforts and outcomes.

Overall, the current survey collected data related to the 2011-12 recruiting year, but this report also correlates selected activities with outcomes, and provides insight into trends by comparing current and previous results.

Some highlights from the current survey include:

While two-thirds of respondents report that their college recruiting is focused in the United States for U.S.-based operations, there is some movement toward global recruiting. This year, 28 percent respondents said they recruit in the United States and internationally, up from less than one-quarter in the 2011 survey.

New college grads accounted for 51.6 percent of entry-level hires in 2011-12—up sharply from 45 percent in 2010-11.

Employers appear to be trending toward advanced degree students: Current results show that 76 percent of college hires were bachelor’s degree graduates, down from more than 81 percent in the 2011 survey. New grads with advanced degrees accounted for approximately 23 percent of new college hires—up from approximately 17 percent in 2011.

More than three-quarters of respondents have a college relations and recruiting department within their organization. In general, the existence of such a department correlates to the size of the organization. Firms with 500 or fewer employees are least likely to have a department; organizations with more than 20,000 employees are most likely to have one.

The size of the organization, however, seems to have little effect on the size of the recruiting staff, expect in terms of the smaller firms. Companies with 1,000 or fewer employers average fewer than three recruiting staff members; companies with more than 1,000 employers average between five and 12 staff members.

The average recruiter is responsible for approximately 80 new intern and full-time hires. The average, however, is somewhat skewed: The median is approximately 61 new hires, both intern and full time.

The average salary for recruiting directors rose 3 percent since the 2011 survey and now stands at $122,050.

Respondents identified branding their organization on campuses as the most important aspect of their college recruiting program.

Andres Traslavina


Campus career fairs are the most widely used mechanisms for branding on campus.

The survey looked at how branding techniques correlate to “success” (identified as higher acceptance rates for those using the technique versus those not using the technique) but found most techniques had little impact. Only two techniques had an effect: faculty relationships (75.7 percent acceptance rate among users versus 65.8 percent acceptance rate for nonusers) and SEO (80.5 percent versus 72.4 percent).

While respondents identified quality of programs, majors offered, and recruiting experience at the school as their main criteria for selecting target schools, none of these correlate directly to recruiting success. Instead, results show that organizations that choose schools based on the helpfulness of the career services staff achieve better results, as evidenced by a higher-than-average offer rate. Among those that cited the career center as their chief selection criterion, the average offer rate was 70 percent, compared to an overall average offer rate of 40 percent.

Respondents indicated that campus relationships—with the career center, faculty, and campus clubs, in particular—are important to them, but less than half evaluate those relationships on a regular schedule. Moreover, evaluations tend to consist of anecdotal information, rather than actual metrics.

On average, respondents take 24 days from the time of the interview to extend an offer; in general, they provide students with about two weeks to accept or reject the offer.

On average, respondents extended offers to approximately 40 percent of those they interviewed—up from just under 35 percent in 2011.

Acceptance rates haven’t moved much from 2011 to 2012, and remain high. Respondents reported an average acceptance rate of 74.8 percent; in 2011, the average was 74.3 percent.

Just under 70 percent of respondents said diversity recruitment is an emphasis. Overall, efforts are focused on African-American, Hispanic-American, and female grads.

Overall, the new college hire retention rate remains relatively stable at the one-year mark: Respondents to the current survey reported a 90 percent one-year retention rate—close to the rates for 2011 (92 percent) and 2010 (91.8 percent).

The average five-year retention rate (68.9 percent) is also in line with rates reported in 2011 (69.2 percent) and 2010 (67.6 percent).

In terms of onboarding new college grads, 41 percent of respondents said they have a rotational program for their new hires.

Note: Totals in this report may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Slice and dice the survey data your way Get a customized report based on benchmarks and comparisons tailored to specific criteria you determine.

Contact Edwin Koc, NACE Director of Research, [email protected].


COLLEGE RELATIONS AND RECRUITINGDEPARTMENTS

THE SCOPE OF COLLEGE RECRUITING College recruiting continues to be dominated by domestic concerns. Approximately 68 percent of respondents to the 2012 Recruiting Benchmarks Survey report that they recruit strictly for operations in the United States, and just under 72 percent of respondents restrict their recruiting of new college graduates to U.S. institutions of higher learning. (See Figure 1.)

For a second year, respondents were asked to identify the scope of their firm’s college recruiting—whether the recruiting was done only for U.S. operations or if it included recruiting for operations conducted outside of U.S. soil, and whether the recruits came from U.S. colleges or whether they involved institutions of higher learning in foreign nations as well. The distribution of recruiting domestically versus globally did not change a great deal from the last survey, but there was some growth in the percentage of companies that are recruiting outside of the United States and for operations outside of this country.

The percentage of respondents who restricted their recruiting to U.S. schools fell from 75 percent in the 2011 survey to 72 percent currently. The percentage of firms that recruited strictly for the domestic market dropped for the second year in a row from 72 percent during the 2010 -11 recruiting season to 66 percent during the 2011-12 recruiting season. The increasing pace of globalization is best reflected in the growing percentage of firms that recruit globally and recruit for both domestic and international operations. This has grown from just under 18 percent in 2010 recruitment survey to just over 26 percent in this report.

Responses % of Responses

Recruit strictly in the U.S. for U.S.-based operations 157 66.0%Recruit strictly in the U.S. for both U.S.-based and international operations 14 5.9%

Recruit both in the U.S. and internationally for U.S.-based operations 5 2.1%

Recruit both in the U.S. and internationally for both U.S. and international operations 62 26.1%

Total 238 100.0%

Figure 1: Scope of college recruiting


Global college recruiting is focused among firms in terms of industries, size of companies, and even regions of the country. Several industries have an unusually high concentration of firms engaged in global recruiting. They are computer/electronics manufacturing, computer software consulting, and motor vehicle manufacturing. These industries all have more than 40 percent of firms that recruit both in the United States and internationally for operations both in and outside of the United States. In the current survey, chemical (pharmaceutical) manufacturing is be added to the list: More than 36 percent of these respondents reported global college recruiting.

There also is a relationship with the size of the company, although the relationship is not continuous—rather it is a step function. As Figure 2 shows, companies with fewer than 2,501 employees are not likely to be engaged in global recruiting. In companies with more than 2,500 employees, there is significant engagement: At least one-quarter of the firms recruit outside of the United States). However, the percentage of firms engaged in global recruiting does not increase with size above the 2,500 employee threshold.

The size difference between firms that recruit globally and those that are restricted to domestic college recruiting is further exemplified when compared to the number of total new college hires by the scope of recruiting. Firms engaged in global recruiting averaged 676 new college hires during the 2011-12 recruiting season (610 full-time hires; 66 intern hires) compared with an average of 241 total new college hires for firms that recruited strictly within the United States (111 full-time hires; 130 intern hires).

Finally, there is a distinct regional flavor to the firms that report recruiting college graduates outside of the United States. As has been true since the 2010 survey, firms from the Far West are far more likely to be involved in international recruiting than the firms in any other part of the country. Thirty-nine percent of firms from the Far West report international college recruiting efforts. By comparison, about 20 percent of firms from the South report international recruiting activity.

U.S. for U.S.- Operations

U.S. for U.S./ International Operations

U.S/International for U.S. Operations

U.S./International for U.S./International

OperationsNumber of Employees % of Responses

500 or less 72.0% 12.0% 4.0% 12.0%

501 - 1,000 69.6% 13.0% 0.0% 17.4%

1,001 - 2,500 80.6% 0.0% 2.8% 16.7%

2,501 - 5,000 56.7% 3.3% 3.3% 36.7%

5,001 - 10,000 65.1% 2.3% 2.3% 30.2%

10,001 - 20,000 60.9% 8.7% 4.3% 26.1%

More than 20,000 58.9% 7.1% 0.0% 33.9%

Figure 2: Scope of college recruiting, by size of company


% Total Hires College Grads

Industry Mean Median

Oil & Gas Extraction 47.00% 33.00%

Utilities 59.40% 75.00%

Construction 58.20% 55.00%

Food & Beverage Mfg. 48.89% 50.00%

Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 48.94% 34.50%

Computer & Electronics Mfg. 37.47% 23.00%

Motor Vehicle Mfg. 50.00% 45.00%

Misc. Mfg. 39.33% 25.00%

Retail Trade 46.33% 47.50%

Transportation 35.60% 33.00%

Information 60.18% 68.00%

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 51.45% 70.00%

Accounting Services 82.17% 94.00%

Engineering Services 51.92% 50.00%

Management Consulting 69.47% 90.00%

Misc. Prof. Services 54.25% 56.50%

Recreation & Hospitality 41.00% 15.00%

Misc. Support Services 40.40% 30.00%

Government 41.25% 35.00%

Figure 3: Percentage of full-time hires from new college graduates, by industry

THE NEW COLLEGE GRADUATE AND ENTRY-LEVEL HIRESOverall, employers reported that, on average, 51.6 percent of their entry-level hires for 2011-12 were new college graduates. This represents a sharp increase from the 2010-11 recruiting season when only 45 percent of all hires came from the ranks of new college graduates.

The numbers are in line with a decade-long trend. During the period from 2000 to 2007, the average percentage of entry-level hires that were new college graduates ranged between 28 and 36 percent; in 2009-10, the percentage reached 49 percent.

The relatively high percentage of new hires that are college graduates that have been seen in recent years may also be a reflection of the general economy. The recession has given employers the opportunity to place greater emphasis on finding new hires with stronger skills sets as indicated by an increase in educational and experiential requirements.

In the 2011 survey, emphasis on new college grad hiring varied, depending on employer type, size, region, and industry. In the current survey, there was very little differentiation in the percent of full-time hires that come from the college ranks based on either the size of the company or the region of the country in which the employer is located. However, variations based on industry continue to exist.


Figure 3 shows that there are some considerable variations among industry sectors when it comes to hiring new college graduates. Employers in the professional services sector, including accounting, engineering, and management consulting services, were clearly quite dependent on new college graduates in filling entry-level positions in 2011-12. By contrast, employers in the manufacturing arena, particularly computer and electronics manufacturing and the more traditional areas of miscellaneous manufacturing, were less dependent on new college hires.

Respondents also indicated the degree level of the new college graduates recruited. (Note: This was the second year this question was posed to respondents, which allows the first indication of any trend in degrees being sought by employers.) As was true in the 2010-11 recruiting cycle, the dominant degree recruited by the employers responding to the Recruiting Benchmarks Survey is the bachelor’s degree. More than 75 percent of all new college hires were students who had just completed studies for their bachelor’s degree. However, as Figure 4 illustrates, the percent of recruits with a bachelor’s degree is down noticeably from 2011. Meanwhile, the percent coming from all the other degree categories increased, most especially among those with a master’s-level education. Combining M.B.A. grads with all other master’s degree holders, the percentage of recruits at the master’s degree level moved from approximately 18 percent in 2010-11 to nearly 23 percent in 2011-12.

0

20

40

60

80

100 2011 2012

2.0%

Associate Bachelor’s Master’s M.B.A. Ph.D

2.8%

75.9

%

9.8% 14

.5%

4.8%

1.9% 2.2%6.

0%

81.5

%

Figure 4: Percentage of new college recruits, by degree level


DEPARTMENT STRUCTURENearly 76 percent of respondents to this survey have a college relations and recruiting department within their organization. This is relatively consistent with the results from previous years: In the 2011 survey, 74 percent of respondents and 78 percent of 2010 survey respondents had a defined college relations department as part of their human resources operations.

Also consistent with the results from previous years’ surveys is the relationship between a formally structured college relations department and the size of company. As Figure 5 shows, there is a fairly clear relationship between size of company and the existence of a formal college relations department. As the figure details, below 2,501 employees, the percentage of firms with formal college relations departments ranges from less than 50 percent for the smallest size firms to approximately two-thirds of firms in the category with 1,000 to 2,500 employees. More than 80 percent of firms with 2,501 employees or more have a formal college relations department.

Whereas size is a major indicator for the existence of a formal college recruiting department, geography and industry are much less so. Region has no effect on whether a firm is likely to have a college relations department, and industry has a minimal impact.

Among respondents reporting a formal recruiting department, the average number of full-time staff fell slightly from an overall average of 8.2 in the 2011 survey to 8.0 in the current survey. In the 2010 survey, the average was 7.7 full-time staff per recruiting department.

Interestingly, there is little discernible relationship between the size of the company and the size of its recruiting staff, except at the lowest end of the size scale. As Figure 6 shows, firms with fewer than 1,001 employees average fewer than three full-time personnel devoted to college recruiting. By comparison, companies with more than 1,000 employees tend to have between five and 12 staff members focused on college recruiting.

Number of Employees

College Relations Department

Yes No

% of Responses

500 or less 44.0% 56.0%

501 - 1,000 52.4% 47.6%

1,001 - 2,500 67.7% 32.3%

2,501 - 5,000 80.8% 19.2%

5,001 - 10,000 91.9% 8.1%

10,001 - 20,000 80.0% 20.0%

More than 20,000 92.0% 8.0%

Figure 5: Existence of college relations departments, by size of company


Another way to view staffing is to examine the number of recruiters employed compared to the number of college recruits to be hired. Overall, among firms that reported their number of recruiters, each recruiter hired an average of 80.1 grads as full-time employees or interns. This number was somewhat skewed by several firms that reported very high hire figures compared with the number of recruiters they employed. This is evident from a considerably lower figure: the median number of hires per recruiter—60.7.

There are differences in the recruiter staffing ratio based on both the size of the company and the industry of the employer. Figure 7 shows that there is a linear relationship between size and the number of hires per recruiter—the smaller the employer, the smaller the number of hires per recruiter. The range goes from an average of 25 hires per recruiter for firms with fewer than 500 employees to more than 100 hires per recruiter for firms with more than 10,000 employees.

Number of Employees

FTE Staff

Mean

500 or less

501 - 1,000

1,001 - 2,500

2,501 - 5,000

5,001 - 10,000

10,001 - 20,000

More than 20,000

Figure 6: Size of college relations departments, by size of company

Hires per Recruiter

Number of Employees Mean Median

500 or less 25.21 20.00

501 - 1,000 42.97 45.67

1,001 - 2,500 44.92 32.00

2,501 - 5,000 56.55 36.67

5,001 - 10,000 84.77 77.33

10,001 - 20,000 142.19 113.75

More than 20,000 107.95 75.00

Figure 7: Hires per recruiter, by size of company


Hires per Recruiter

Industry Mean Median

Oil & Gas Extraction 44.99 43.14

Construction 43.60 26.00

Food & Beverage Mfg. 92.60 31.67

Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 119.39 104.33

Computer & Electronics Mfg. 81.34 60.33

Misc. Mfg. 67.86 46.89

Retail Trade 39.48 32.00

Transportation 75.97 69.50

Information 102.41 107.69

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 88.96 59.25

Engineering Services 86.75 49.00

Management Consulting 75.09 72.67

Misc. Prof. Services 47.53 53.25

Figure 8: Hires per recruiter, by industry

These differences in the hire-to-recruiter ratio suggest significant economies of scale in the talent acquisition process. Since personnel costs are likely to account for a major portion of the overall cost in talent acquisition, the relatively low number of recruiters needed to hire new employees for larger companies should translate to a lower cost-per-hire figure for larger firms. Unfortunately, because the data on cost-per-hire are limited, it is impossible to reliably confirm this speculation.

There are also variations in this staffing ratio according to industry. Figure 8 shows that the hire-to-recruiter ratio ranges from a low of just less than 40 hires per recruiter in the retail trade industry to a high of nearly 120 hires per recruiter among pharmaceutical firms. Some of this differential across industries is related to the size of the companies in the industries, but there are also independent variations that appear to relate to industry-wide behaviors.


STAFF SALARIESRespondents were also asked to provide salary data for their full-time staff members. Overall, director-level positions commanded the highest salaries, averaging $122,050, followed by managers, with salaries averaging $94,785. (See Figure 9.)

The average salary shows some changes in the current survey. The average director salary is up approximately 3 percent from that reported in the 2011 survey. The averages for all other positions suffered decreases ranging from a high of nearly 5 percent for coordinators to a low of 1.6 percent for managers.

Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75

Director – Salary

Coordinator – Salary

Manager – Salary

Recruiter – Salary

Figure 9: College relations staff: title and salary

Salary levels in college recruiting appear to bear little relationship to the size, region, or industry of the organization. Even the relationship with the experience level of the incumbent in a particular position is a bit dicey. Figures 10 through 13 show the average experience level and the average salary by position and by the size of the firm.

Years of Experience

Number of Employees Mean Salary

Figure 10: Director, experience and salary, by size of company


Years of Experience


500 or less 7.00 $55,000

501 - 1,000 8.00 $62,000

1,001 - 2,500 6.00 $57,429

2,501 - 5,000 7.00 $79,333

5,001 - 10,000 6.00 $58,200

10,001 - 20,000 7.00 $73,000

More than 20,000 6.00 $67,200

Years of Experience


500 or less 7.60 $45,207

501 - 1,000 6.88 $45,400

1,001 - 2,500 4.07 $51,636

2,501 - 5,000 2.11 $45,375

5,001 - 10,000 5.67 $44,375

10,001 - 20,000 2.80 $42,753

More than 20,000 3.70 $46,975

Figure 12: Recruiter, experience and salary, by size of company

Figure 13: Coordinator, experience and salary, by size of company

Years of Experience


500 or less 14.67 $68,750

501 - 1,000 11.71 $92,000

1,001 - 2,500 10.67 $89,444

2,501 - 5,000 10.55 $94,444

5,001 - 10,000 10.82 $100,222

10,001 - 20,000 6.92 $96,900

More than 20,000 9.91 $99,217

Figure 11: Manager, experience and salary, by size of company


COST-PER-HIREThe average cost-per-hire for college recruiting is a number that should be used with some caution. The core problem, which has been around for many years, is that few employers do a sufficient job of allocating costs so that the true cost-per-hire can be properly assessed. This is particularly true for organizations where the college relations department is embedded in a larger human relations function with staff sharing activities across functions. For these firms, properly allocating overhead costs can be a daunting task.

Keeping these issues in mind, the average cost of recruiting a new college graduate during the 2011-12 recruiting season was $5,134; the median cost was $3,333. (See Figure 14.) The wide difference between mean and median costs indicates a great deal of variability in the data. In particular, it points to a number of respondents with cost-per-hire figures that were significantly above the norm. Differences such as these can be a source of concern in that they may indicate instability in the data. However, the numbers for 2011-12 are comparable with those for 2010-11 where the mean was $5,054 and the median was $2,906. This provides some measure of confidence that the limited data available are pointing to the same thing and the numbers are being computed by respondents in a more or less consistent manner.

Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75

Cost-Per-Hire

Number of Employees Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75

500 or less $1,185.71 $7,645.28 $7,645.28 $14,104.84

501 - 1,000 $5,149.92 $6,634.85 $5,625.00 $6,323.53

1,001 - 2,500 $2,636.94 $6,512.14 $3,142.11 $10,154.26

2,501 - 5,000 $4,655.34 $11,365.37 $6,232.47 $11,363.64

5,001 - 10,000 $1,770.24 $3,181.87 $2,629.31 $3,014.82

10,001 - 20,000 $2,654.58 $3,737.47 $4,021.74 $4,360.00

More than 20,000 $1,702.81 $2,885.68 $2,607.14 $3,719.28

Figure 14: Cost-per-hire, overall

Figure 15: Cost-per-hire, by size of company

The variability is also a reflection of how cost-per-hire is affected by the size of the company. (See Figure 15.) As might be expected, the average cost-per-hire is generally lower for larger companies. The reason is that total costs are generally offset by the far larger number of hires they generate. For these firms, there are economies of scale inherent in spreading overhead costs, in particular, over a much larger base of new hires.

Andres Traslavina


RECRUITING BUDGETS How are costs distributed across different recruiting budget categories? Respondents provided their costs by functional recruiting categories.1 If the overall cost-per-hire figures should be used with caution, then these estimated allocations should be treated with even greater levels of trepidation. It is always the case that the component parts of statistical relationships have even greater levels of potential error than exist for the whole. Nevertheless, the numbers respondents provided are helpful for those seeking to understand how recruiting costs are distributed. Figure 16 presents the average percentage distribution for recruiting costs across functional categories for 2011-12.

1. The specific elements associated with each functional area include the following:a. Cost of college relations/recruitment office: Total cost of office overhead; salaries and benefits of recruiters—prorated if their time is divided

among other HR functions; expenses associated with recruiter training and professional development, e.g. membership fees, conference/workshop fees.

b. Expenditure for prerecruitment activities: Total cost of activities such as resume books, information sessions, related activities, programs for faculty/career services staff.

c. Cost of recruiting trips: Expenses associated with on-campus recruitment, e.g. recruiter travel and accommodations expenses, cost of equipment rentals.

d. Expenditures related to company visits: Expenses for bringing candidates to the organization, including candidates’ travel, lodging, and meal expenses; and the time of line managers, recruiters, and other staff involved in the visit.

e. Hiring and relocation costs: Expenses for new hires visiting the work city to locate housing, temporary lodging costs, moving expenses.f. Advertising expenditures: Expenses associated with recruitment advertising and recruitment literature.

3.3%Cost of Advertising

25.9%Hiring and Relocation Cost

13.7%Company Visits

36.7%College Relations/

Recruitment O!ce

7.8%Prerecruiting

Activities

12.7%Recruiting Trips

Figure 16: Percentage allocation of recruiting costs across functional recruiting categories


Not at All Important

Not Very Important

Somewhat Important

Very Important

Extremely Important

Branding your organization to campuses 1.7% 2.2% 6.5% 30.0% 59.6%

Branding your organization to career centers 1.8% 4.0% 20.7% 43.6% 30.0%

Identifying talent early 5.2% 3.5% 12.2% 20.0% 59.1%

Measuring results 1.8% 3.9% 23.7% 33.3% 37.3%

Diversity .9% 6.9% 18.2% 32.5% 41.6%

Interacting with faculty .9% 6.2% 25.2% 43.4% 24.3%

Using social networks 8.4% 21.6% 38.3% 22.0% 9.7%

Accessing training 2.2% 25.4% 40.4% 23.7% 8.3%

Managing campus relations with HR 5.3% 14.9% 25.4% 35.1% 19.3%

Demonstrating the value of college relations 2.6% 7.9% 18.9% 33.3% 37.3%

Figure 17: Aspects of college recruiting – importance ratings

COLLEGE RECRUITING PROGRAMS:WHAT MATTERS MOST

ASPECTS OF THE COLLEGE RECRUITING PROGRAM As in previous surveys, employers were asked to rate a number of issues on their importance to their college recruiting programs.

Branding the organization to campuses was far and away the most highly rated aspect of the college recruiting program: Nearly 90 percent of respondents rated on-campus branding as very or extremely important. Following on-campus branding were:

• Identifying talent early through an internship program,

• Branding directly with the college career center,

• Measuring the results of the program,

• Measuring diversity recruitment, and

• Demonstrating the value of college relations.

All of these were rated as very or extremely important aspects of college recruiting by more than 70 percent of respondents. (See Figure 17.)


There are only two aspects where the majority of respondents did not rate the activity as very or extremely important to the function of college recruiting. These are accessing training for college relations staff, and using social networks to recruit new college hires: Less than one-third of respondents found these as very important. There were few significant differences among different respondent groups as to what they viewed as the most important elements of college recruiting.

BRANDING TECHNIQUESWith branding clearly identified as a primary function for the college recruiter, the survey attempted to develop a picture of the most widely used and most effective techniques used to market an employer to potential new graduate recruits.

As Figure 18 shows, the most widely used branding mechanisms are appearing at campus career fairs, using the corporate website as a marketing device, and developing relationships with faculty. More than 90 percent of respondents used each of these mechanisms to brand their firms to potential new graduate recruits.

Yes No

% of category

Career/job fairs 96.8% 3.2%

Corporate website 95.4% 4.6%

Relationships with faculty 91.0% 9.0%

Campus information sessions 85.3% 14.7%

Supporting student organizations 81.2% 18.8%

Social networking 61.5% 38.5%

Campus website 59.2% 40.8%

Advertising in job publications 37.4% 62.6%

Internet advertising 35.0% 65.0%

Search engine optimization 29.3% 70.7%

Advertising in general print publications 19.5% 80.5%

DVDs 6.5% 93.5%

Campus radio stations 2.3% 97.7%

Campus TV stations 0.9% 99.1%

Figure 18: Branding techniques – use rate


56.1%

Supporting Student

Organizations

74.2%

Relationships With Faculty

73.5%

Career Fairs

54.3%

Campus Information

Sessions

55.8%

Corporate Website

25.0%

Internet Advertising

22.1%

Search Engine Optimization

24.8%

Social Networking

45.6%

Campus Website

25.0%

Advertising in General Print Publications

0.0%

Campus Radio

Stations

18.1%

Advertising in Job

Publications

4.0%

DVDs

0.0%

Campus TV Stations

Figure 19: Percentage of respondents rating branding technique as highly effective

These results are consistent with the findings from previous surveys. In fact, the most noteworthy changes from the 2011 survey are the relative increased use of social networking and search engine optimization as branding techniques. Use of both grew, and each moved up one position relative to other techniques on the list of most-used branding devices.

The perception as to which branding techniques are the most effective is also virtually unchanged since the 2011 survey. Once again, the most widely used techniques are generally perceived as the most effective in communicating the company’s brand to potential employees. Building relationships with faculty and attendance at career fairs are the highest-rated techniques in terms of effectiveness, with nearly 75 percent of respondents rating each as highly effective. The other branding devices where a majority of the respondents felt the device was highly effective were supporting student organizations, the employer’s own corporate website, and campus information sessions. (See Figure 19.)


Is there any statistical relationship between the application of employer branding techniques and the acceptance rate of job offers? The hypothesis is that an effective branding technique will be reflected in a higher offer acceptance rate for employers using the technique than for employers who do not use the device. The thinking here is that a well-branded company will be more attractive and have a higher likelihood that their offer of full-time employment will be accepted.

When comparing the acceptance rates of employers that used these branding devices against those that did not employ them, very little impact was found from the application of most of these techniques, i.e., the acceptance rate tended to be the same whether or not a company used a particular branding device. However, there were two techniques that indicated a positive response:

Companies that invested time and energy in building direct relationships with key faculty had a better average acceptance rate (75.7 percent) than those companies that did not employ this form of branding (65.8 percent).

Companies that employed SEO—search engine optimization—in a desire to drive web traffic to the company’s website had an average acceptance rate of 80.5 percent compared with an average acceptance rate of 72.4 percent for companies that did not use SEO.


0

20

40

60

80

1002011 2012

11.5%

2-year schools Traditional 4-year schools

For-pro!t schools Online schools

9.3%

99.0% 97.4%

12.0% 13.7%4.7% 1.8%

Figure 20: Types of colleges/universities at which employers recruited

RECRUITING: OPERATIONAL DETAILSTARGET SCHOOL SELECTIONHow do employers decide what schools they’ll recruit at?

This question was asked from two angles for the second year in a row. First, employers were asked which type of school they targeted for recruiting (two-year, four-year, for-profit). Then, respondents were asked which attributes of a school were the most important in choosing a particular college or university as a target institution.

Figure 20 shows the types of schools at which survey respondents recruited in 2010-11 and in 2011-12. As would be expected, virtually all respondents recruited at traditional four-year institutions in both the 2010-11 and 2011-12 recruiting seasons. However, there is some subtle movement toward examining graduates from for-profit institutions. In the 2011 survey, 12 percent of respondents reported recruiting at for-profit schools; in the 2012 report, that percentage increased slightly to approximately 14 percent.

The percent of recruiters focusing on two-year institutions and online degree programs has dropped somewhat during the 2011-12 recruiting season. The percent recruiting at two-year schools has gone from 11.5 percent in 2010-11 to just over 9 percent in 2011-12, while those recruiting at online schools dropped from nearly 5 percent in 2010-11 to less than 2 percent in 2011-12.


1 2 3 Total Points

Quality of programs 73 40 17 316

Majors offered 66 49 15 311

Past recruiting experience at school 57 28 37 264

Location of school 36 34 37 213

Success of school’s alumni in your organization 31 18 25 154

Diversity of student body 19 27 25 136

National rankings 19 28 14 127

Reputation of school 18 19 7 99

Accreditation of school 23 6 10 91

Interest of school’s graduates in your organization 12 18 17 89

Executives are alumni of school 10 12 16 70

Retention history with school’s alumni 7 16 13 66

Helpfulness of career services staff 4 15 13 55

Salary expectations of students 3 12 14 47Respondents were provided with a list of school attributes and asked to rank the three that are most important to them when deciding where they will recruit. Scores were assigned to each attribute; a first-place vote received three points, a second-place vote got two points, and third place was awarded one point.

Figure 21: Selection criteria for target schools

It is interesting to note that while there was no clear relationship with the size of the organization recruiting and the types of schools that served as targets, there were notable differences connected with the industry group and the geographic region from which the recruiting firm originated.

Employers located in the Northeast and on the West Coast were far less likely to incorporate two-year institutions, for-profit schools, or online schools into their target mix than were employers in the Southeast or Midwest. For example, less than 10 percent of employers from the Northeast or Far West reported recruiting at two-year schools while nearly 30 percent of employers from the Southeastern or Plains states included these institutions in their target mix. Similar differences existed for high-tech manufacturing, engineering services, and computer consulting services. These industries tended to recruit at two-year and for-profit schools more heavily than all other industry sectors.

How do employers choose their target schools? Respondents were provided with a list of school attributes and asked to rank the three that are most important to them when deciding where they will recruit. Four attributes stood out, including the academic majors offered at the school, the perceived quality of the programs offered at the school, the employer’s recruiting experience at the school, and the school’s location. (See Figure 21.) These are the same four reasons that have dominated the selection criteria in previous years.


The survey also examined the relationship between the selection criteria used to choose target schools and success in recruiting. Chosen as an indicator of success was the percentage of students interviewed who received an offer of a full-time position. (The rationale: If target schools are well chosen, then recruiters have an effective set of candidates available, resulting in a higher rate of offers per candidates interviewed.)

Figure 22 shows the percent of interviews who received offers in relation to the number one criterion used by a firm to select target schools. As Figure 22 shows, the selection criterion connected with the highest average offer rate is the helpfulness of the career center staff: Employers who choose a target school primarily because of the relationships they have developed with the respective career centers have an average offer rate of nearly 72 percent. This compares with the overall average offer rate of approximately 40 percent.

Other criteria that generated high offer rates include the salary expectations of students at the target schools (average offer rate of 65 percent) and the firm’s retention with the school’s alumni (offer rate of 60 percent).

Interestingly, the three criteria that lead to the highest offer rates are the least employed primary reasons for selecting target schools. The top two reasons for selecting schools—quality of programs and majors offered—demonstrate little impact on the offer rate.

Percent of interviews receiving offer

Mean

Accreditation of school

Helpfulness of career services staff

Majors offered

National rankings

Quality of programs

Reputation of school

Retention history with school’s alumni

Figure 22: Target school criteria and offer rate


Responses % of Respondents

Each semester 17 16.0%

Once a year 71 67.0%

Once every three years 11 10.4%

Once every five years 1 0.9%

Other timeline 6 5.7%

Total 106 100.0%

Figure 24: Timeframe for conducting evaluations of on-campus relationships


Career centers

Department chair

Faculty

Fraternities and sororities

Other

Figure 23: Campus resources in recruiting

RECRUITERS AND COLLEGE CAREER SERVICESDespite the fact that the helpfulness of the career center is listed so low as a criterion for selecting a target school, recruiters still rely heavily on their relationships with the career center when it comes to recruiting at a particular university. When asked, “which on-campus groups employers work with,” respondents nearly universally indicated the college career center as a useful recruiting resource on campus. (See Figure 23.)

One thing made clear by Figure 23 is that the great majority of recruiters do not limit themselves to simply one campus connection. While the career center is the required stop, more than 80 percent of respondents chose to add student clubs to their roster of resources, and nearly 76 percent included faculty. Therefore, while the career center remains a vital link between the employers and potential new graduate recruits, few recruiters view the career center as a completely satisfactory connection.

EVALUATING ON-CAMPUS PROGRAMSGiven the data connecting college faculty with effective branding and the importance of relationships built with college career center staff in developing an effective recruiting experience, it would seem essential that employers conduct regular reviews that evaluate their on-campus relationships.

Somewhat surprisingly, less than half of respondents (45.9 percent) indicated that their firms conducted regularly scheduled evaluations of their on-campus relationships. When firms conduct such evaluations, they tend to be done annually. (See Figure 24.)



Survey

Focus group

Dialogue with campus officials

Interview firm’s campus representatives

Other

2011-12 Career Fairs 2012-13 Career Fairs

Number of Employees Mean

500 or less 10 11

501 - 1,000 13 13

1,001 - 2,500 20 22

2,501 - 5,000 24 23

5,001 - 10,000 20 22

10,001 - 20,000 27 26

More than 20,000 58 61

Figure 25: Methods used to conduct campus evaluations

Figure 26: Career fairs, by size of company

CAREER FAIRSEmployers expected almost no change in career fair activity during the 2012-13 recruiting season. On average, respondents planned to attend 29 career fairs during the 2012-13 recruiting season; the same group attended an average of 28 career fairs during the 2011-12 recruiting season.

There are variations in the number of career fairs attended based on the size of the company. As Figure 26 illustrates, the number of career fairs a firm is likely to attend increases with the size of the firm. At firms with fewer than 1,001 employees, recruiters are likely to attend approximately a dozen career fairs annually. At firms with more than 1,000 employees but below 20,000, the number of career fairs attended doubles to about 24. At the very largest companies, those with more than 20,000 employees, there is a vast expansion in the number of career fairs recruiters attend. These firms are likely to target upward of 60 career fairs during the course of the recruiting season.

What do employers use to “measure” their performance on campus? The majority rely on dialogues with both campus officials (presumably career center contacts and key faculty) and their own campus representatives to get a sense of how well the campus relationship is performing. A relatively small percentage employ actual metrics, either in the form of survey results or performance indicators (conversion rates, retention rates, and so forth), to determine if their on-campus relationships are effective and producing the desired results. (See Figure 25.)


ON-CAMPUS INTERVIEWSFor the past several years, an interesting and somewhat perplexing trend has developed. First, the percentage of employers going on campus to interview prospective recruits has been decreasing. Between 2004 and 2007, the year-to-year decline was very small, but steady. In 2008, the drop-off was substantial, and, since then, the decline has been further reinforced. In 2011-12, the percent of firms that conducted on-campus interviews dropped to 75.8 percent from 77.4 percent in 2010-11.

The second trend is probably an indicator of an improved job market. While the percentage of companies engaging in on-campus interviewing has been steadily decreasing, the percentage of hires emanating from on-campus interviews generally increased over these years. This upward trend has not been as steady, but the overall change is noticeable, especially since 2007. The results from the 2011 and 2012 surveys show a turnaround in this trend—the percent of hires coming from on-campus interviews has declined the last two years. (See Figure 27.) As the number of new graduates hired grows, the number that comes from direct recruiting on campus is not sufficient to fill all the employment needs of an employer.

40

60

80

10089.2% 89.1%

80.0%81.2%

88.8%

2004 2006 2007 2008 2012201120102009

% Interviewing on Campus % Hires From On-Campus Interviews

75.8%77.4%77.7%

61.0%53.9%

63.6%62.2%56.6%

60.1%62.4%64.1%

Figure 27: On-campus interviews, by percent of hires


By industry, oil and gas extraction and accounting services were the most reliant on conducting their hiring interviews on campus; these sectors hired more than 90 percent of their Class of 2012 recruits from on-campus interviews. In contrast, on-campus interviews appear to be the least likely path to the job for engineering services, which reported hiring only 20 percent of its total college hires from on-campus interviews. (See Figure 28.)

Percent of hires from on-campus interview

Industry Mean

Oil & Gas Extraction 90.80

Utilities 56.25

Construction 66.50

Food & Beverage Mfg. 61.75

Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 62.25

Computer & Electronics Mfg. 47.23

Motor Vehicle Mfg. 47.14

Misc. Mfg. 79.29

Retail Trade 66.63

Transportation 52.75

Information 48.50

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 56.33

Accounting Services 95.83

Engineering Services 19.67

Management Consulting 69.00

Misc. Prof. Services 62.78

Recreation & Hospitality 63.75

Misc. Support Services 65.00

Government 55.00

Figure 28: On-campus interviews and hiring, by industry


TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS USED IN COLLEGE RECRUITINGBeyond the on-campus recruiting activities, employers use a number of other avenues to identify and attract potential new hires from the ranks of recent college graduates, including technical applications. (See Figure 29.)

A number of these technical applications are used nearly universally by recruiters. Internet postings on campus websites, postings on the company’s own website, and applicant tracking systems are used by more than 85 percent of respondents; those numbers have stayed fairly steady for the past several years.

Only one other application is used by more than 50 percent of respondents: social networking, which represents a major growth area, moving from under 50 percent in the 2011 survey to more than 60 percent in the current survey.

% of Respondents Using Effectiveness Rating

2011 2012 2011 2012

Internet job postings - campus website 95.9 99.3 3.9 3.8

Internet job postings - own website 89.6 87.7 3.7 3.8

Applicant tracking system 83.0 89.9 3.7 3.7

Internet job postings - commercial website 51.8 49.6 3.3 3.2

Internet advertising 47.4 44.2 3.6 3.3

Social networking sites 46.9 61.6 3.1 3.1

Searching Internet for resumes (mining) 38.0 35.5 3.2 3.3

Preemployment assessment testing 30.7 33.6 3.9 3.5

Video interviewing 21.5 27.3 3.6 3.6

Company blogs 16.8 19.6 3.2 3.0 (1 – 5 scale where 1 = not at all effective, 2 = not very effective, 3 = somewhat effective, 4 = very effective, 5 = extremely effective)

Figure 29: Technical applications – use and effectiveness

Figure 29 also displays the average effectiveness rating respondents provided for each of these applications. As has generally been true in past surveys, none of the technical applications were rated particularly effective in enhancing an organization’s college recruiting effort. Most of the average ratings are little changed from the 2011 survey. The one result that does stand out is the consistently modest effectiveness rating garnered by social networking. Even as this application has experienced relatively rapid growth in use over the past several years, respondents indicate very little enthusiasm for its performance. This suggests that employers are taking on social networking as a recruiting tool more as a result of its potential without fully understanding how to use it effectively.


THE HIRING PROCESSCYCLE TIMEHow long does it take, on average, to bring a new recruit into the company fold? The survey probes this question in two parts. First, it takes a look at the average number of days respondents report for an offer to be made or a rejection notice to be sent from the point of the initial candidate interview. The survey then details the average amount of time organizations provide recruits to either accept or reject the offer.

The average time from interview to offer in this year’s survey is 24.2 days, and the median time was 15 days. These figures are consistent with the interview-to-offer cycle time from previous years. (See Figure 30.) There is no clear direction in these times. The only aspect illustrated by Figure 30 is that there is a relatively narrow band in which the offer follows the interview, i.e., approximately a month in real time or 20 business days.

O!er

22.2 Days

25.0 Days

23.5 Days

22.5 Days

24.2 Days

Interview

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 30: Time from interview to offer in days (2008 – 2012)


There are significant differences in the interview-to-offer cycle times across industries. Government agencies, for example, have traditionally had a much longer turnaround time when it came to delivering a recruit an offer than employers in other sectors. As Figure 31 details, government agencies still have one of the longer interview-to-offer timeframes, with a 38-day average; however, recruiters in a few other industries also exhibit similar, lengthy cycle times. Recreation and hospitality, engineering services, and construction join government in taking an average of 30 days or more to deliver an offer. By contrast, recruiters from computer and electronics manufacturers, accounting services, and miscellaneous support services stand out in delivering their offers in an average of less than 18 days.

Cycle Time – Offer

Industry Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75

Oil & Gas Extraction 5.00 27.80 14.00 30.00

Utilities 15.00 25.83 25.50 30.00

Construction 14.00 30.00 20.50 45.00

Food & Beverage Mfg. 14.00 26.90 20.50 35.00

Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 5.00 19.24 14.00 21.00

Computer & Electronics Mfg. 10.00 16.00 14.00 21.00

Motor Vehicle Mfg. 7.00 23.36 14.00 30.00

Misc. Mfg. 10.00 23.24 14.00 30.00

Retail Trade 14.00 21.29 21.00 30.00

Transportation 5.00 19.29 10.00 30.00

Information 10.00 23.50 16.00 30.00

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 7.00 22.68 20.00 30.00

Accounting Services 10.00 17.00 10.00 30.00

Engineering Services 6.50 30.33 21.00 55.00

Management Consulting 8.50 28.25 21.00 45.00

Misc. Prof. Services 14.00 19.70 14.00 21.00

Recreation & Hospitality 14.00 39.50 27.00 65.00

Misc. Support Services 14.00 17.50 17.00 21.00

Government 30.00 38.00 45.00 45.00

Figure 31: Time from interview to offer in days, by industry


Once an offer is delivered, how long, on average, does it take to complete the cycle and have the student either accept or reject the offer? Most recruiters give their recruits approximately two weeks (14.1 days) to accept or reject a job offer. This portion of the timeline has been consistent across the years, with the exception of when the recession was at its height. In 2009, employers provided their candidates with a somewhat longer time to accept or reject an offer (16 days). Employers gave candidates 14.25 days during the 2010-11 recruiting season, and 14.5 days during the 2009-10 recruiting season.

Overall, the average time provided from offer to acceptance is similar for most companies regardless of demographics. Size of company or regional location makes virtually no difference in how long an employer gives a student recruit to accept or reject an offer. The one discernible difference is the industry of the employer. (See Figure 32.) Only one industry group approaches providing its recruits with nearly a month (20 business days) to respond: miscellaneous business services, at 20.5 days on average. By contrast, there are several industry groups where the average time to accept an offer is less than two weeks or 10 business days. Engineering services (6.08 days), recreation and hospitality (8.75 days), and utilities (9.33 days) are the industries with particularly short average offer-to-acceptance cycle times.

Cycle Time – Acceptance


Utilities

Construction

Retail Trade

Transportation

Information

Accounting Services

Engineering Services

Management Consulting

Recreation & Hospitality

Government

Figure 32: Time provided from offer to acceptance in days, by industry


OFFERS AND ACCEPTANCESThe college hiring market continued to show improvement in 2011-12. The NACE Job Outlook survey for the 2011-12 recruiting season consistently indicated upswings in the number of opportunities for new college hires.

The improvement in the college labor market is consistent with the offer rate responses to the survey. The average percentage of students who received a full-time job offer after being interviewed increased significantly in 2011-12 to a rate consistent with pre-recession levels. For 2011-12, it was 39.8 percent, a sizable increase from the 34.8 percent figure of 2010-11. (See Figure 33.)

30

35

40 39.2%

37.4%

33.9%

34.8%

39.8%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 33: Offer rate trend (2008 – 2012)

The rate at which students accepted the jobs they were offered continues to stay relatively high even as the market tends to improve. In the current survey, the acceptance rate is 74.8 percent. This is a bit higher than the 2011 survey figure (74.3 percent) and well above pre-recession acceptance rates (67.7 percent in 2008). The continuing high acceptance rates may be a reflection of the perception that the market has not recovered yet from the recession and that any opportunity should not be bypassed in favor of possibly getting a better offer.


The relatively broad demographics of size and geography appear to have little relationship with either the offer or the acceptance rate. When there are variations connected with these rates, they are most likely to be found with the industrial classification of the employer recruiters. First, offer rates can vary significantly by industry. As Figure 34 details, several industry categories (oil and gas, miscellaneous support services, and government) had offer rates of around 20 percent during the 2011-12 recruiting season. By comparison, industries such as utilities, retail trade, and miscellaneous professional services all averaged more than 50 percent in the number of recruits who received offers after their on-campus interviews.

Percent of Interviews Receiving Offer



Utilities 50.00 59.50 55.00 69.00

Construction 12.00 38.33 25.00 68.00





Misc. Mfg. 15.00 37.88 45.00 50.00

Retail Trade 25.00 50.83 57.50 75.00

Transportation 20.00 45.00 40.00 65.00

Information 27.50 39.63 37.00 57.50








Government 11.00 21.20 25.00 30.00

Figure 34: Offer rate, by industry


Percent of Offers Accepted



Utilities 78.00 74.20 78.00 90.00

Construction 80.00 84.00 85.00 90.00





Misc. Mfg. 65.00 72.94 75.00 80.00

Retail Trade 66.00 70.63 77.50 85.00

Transportation 75.00 64.60 80.00 80.00

Information 65.00 71.56 70.00 75.00








Government 85.00 83.20 85.00 86.00

Figure 35: Acceptance rate, by industry

Acceptance rates did not vary nearly as much as the offer rates, but there were differences in the average percent of offers being accepted connected with different industry categories. (See Figure 35.) Most notably there appears to be a bit of an inverse relationship with the offer rates by industry. That is, some of the industries with the lowest offer rates generate the highest acceptance rates. For example, oil/gas extraction and government are among the list of industries with the highest percentage of offers being accepted at more than 80 percent.


DIVERSITY RECRUITINGDiversity recruiting is a core element of the college recruiting process. It remains a major concern among survey respondents, although the percentage of firms that incorporate a diversity element as a critical aspect of their college recruiting is down again this year. (See Figure 36.)

60

70

80

65.6%

72.8%74.1%

70.9%69.8%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 36: Percentage of firms with diversity effort (2008 – 2012)


The emphasis on diversity recruiting was all but uniform across geographic regions and employer types in the current survey. Among industry types, only oil and gas extraction and construction stood out for having a majority of respondents that did not feature a diversity recruiting effort. This was the second year in a row that oil and gas extraction fell at the bottom in featuring diversity recruiting efforts among its companies. As Figure 37 details, in the Southwest where there is relatively low participation from the oil/gas industry in diversity programs, just 50 percent of the responding employers had diversity recruiting components.

Region

Diversity Recruiting Priority

Yes No

% of Responses

New England

Southeast

Southwest

Rocky Mountains

Far West

Figure 37: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by region

The one demographic where there has been a consistent link with diversity is size of the organization. Figure 38 shows that there is near linear relationship between the size of the firm recruiting and the existence of diversity considerations in the college recruiting program: The smaller the firm, the less likely it is that the college recruitment program will have a defined diversity recruitment effort. Current respondents can be divided into three categories—those with fewer than 2,501 employees, where the percentage of firms with diversity efforts generally falls below 60 percent; those with 2,501 to 10,000 employees, where the percentage of firms is between 70 and 75 percent; and those firms with more than 10,000 employees, where diversity efforts are nearly universal (85 to 90 percent participation).


Region

Diversity Recruiting Priority

Yes No

% of Responses

500 or less 44.0% 56.0%

501 - 1,000 65.2% 34.8%

1,001 - 2,500 55.6% 44.4%

2,501 - 5,000 73.3% 26.7%

5,001 - 10,000 72.1% 27.9%

10,001 - 20,000 91.3% 8.7%

More than 20,000 85.7% 14.3%

2012 2011

Women 90.8% 88.1%

African-Americans 95.1% 93.3%

Hispanic-Americans 91.4% 89.6%

Asian-Americans 62.0% 60.7%

Native-Americans 57.1% 54.8%

Physically Challenged 40.5% 35.6%

Figure 38: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by size of company

Figure 39: Populations targeted for diversity recruiting, 2012 vs. 2011


How successful are the diversity recruitment efforts of most respondents? Figure 40 compares the percentage of new college recruits from targeted populations for firms that state they are engaged in diversity recruiting against the gender and ethnic distribution of bachelor’s degree recipients as a whole.2 As was true during the 2010-11 recruiting season, the data show a marked difference in the hiring of ethnic minority or physically-challenged candidates between firms that engage in diversity recruiting and those that do not. Firms that have diversity recruiting efforts average a higher percentage of new college graduate recruits from all the targeted categories, with the most significant difference being the hiring of African-American graduates.

With Diversity Effort Bachelor’s Degrees Class of 2011

Women 32.3 57.3

African-Americans 10.3 9.3

Hispanic-Americans 9.4 9.2

Asian-Americans 14.4 6.3

Native-Americans 1.4 0.6

Physically Challenged 2.2 NA

Figure 40: Hiring results by diversity populations

Even though current efforts appear to be fairly successful in landing diverse populations in the starting work forces of organizations with defined diversity programs, survey respondents report that their efforts to recruit underrepresented minorities will only become more intense in the coming recruiting season. Figure 41 shows the diversity recruiting goals of organizations with stated diversity efforts. The goal for virtually every population group is greater than the percentages actually hired from the Class of 2012, with the exception of Asian-Americans. However, these stated goals are not significantly different than those stated in previous years. In no previous year was the average percentage goal for minority hires ever achieved, with the exception that Asian-American hires traditionally exceeded both the average goal and their overall representation in the college graduating class.

2. The gender and ethnic breakouts for bachelor degree recipients are based on data reported to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the Class of 2011. These data were summarized from individual school reports for all four-year public and private, degree-granting institutions.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Women

African-American

Hispanic -American

Asian-Amerian

Native-American

Physically Challenged

35.4%

17.8%

16.8%

13.8%

7.8%

5.9%

Figure 41: Hiring goals for 2013, by diversity populations


HBCUs 91 80.5%

HSIs 39 34.5%

Tribal Colleges 6 5.3%

INROADS 24 21.2%

Women only 22 19.5%

Other 38 33.6%

Figure 42: Targets for diversity recruiting

What do employers with diversity programs do to identify and recruit minority talent? The vast majority (79 percent) target selected schools for diversity recruiting. These are schools that serve predominantly minority populations. Figure 42 details the kinds of institutions employers used during the 2011-12 recruiting season to maximize their chance of recruiting minority talent. As the figure shows, by far the most popular source for diversity recruiting was the historically black college or university (HBCU). Eighty percent of respondents with a diversity recruiting program had such a school on its target selection list. The second most popular alternative had a significantly lesser representation. With just 34 percent of respondents targeting these institutions, Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs, schools where 25 percent or more of the enrollment is Hispanic-American) were far less targeted than the schools that served a predominantly African-American population. The number three alternative was not really a target set of schools but rather minority-focused student groups on campuses. Examples include the National Society of Black Engineers, the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, and the Society of Women Engineers.


THE NEW HIRECANDIDATE RETENTIONOne of the key measures for evaluating a college recruiting program is candidate retention—what percent of new graduate hires are still with the company one year and five years after their hire date. The greater the degree of retention, the stronger and more cost effective the recruiting program is perceived to be.

The one-year retention rate noted in the 2012 survey—90 percent—was very close to those exhibited in previous surveys. It was 92.0 percent in 2011 and 91.8 percent in 2010.

There were few differences across industries in the current survey. Only one industry sector—miscellaneous support services—stood out with a low reported one-year retention rate (54 percent). All other sectors reported at least an 85 percent retention rate after one year of service. (See Figure 43.)

Industry Mean


Utilities 100.00

Construction 95.56





Misc. Mfg. 89.75

Retail Trade 89.00

Figure 43: One-year retention rates, by industry

Industry Mean

Information 95.00







Misc. Support Services 54.00

Government 95.20


As for size, smaller firms appear to be more successful than larger firms in holding onto their new hires, but the relationship between size and retention is hardly perfectly linear. Firms with more than 2,500 employees tended to have somewhat lower retention rates than those with fewer than 2,501 employees. (See Figure 44.)

Number of Employees Mean 500 or less ..................93.30%

500 - 1,000...................93.85%1,001 - 2,500 .............. 97.45%2,501 - 5,000 .............. 95.56%5,001 - 10,000.............82.36%10,001 - 20,000 ..........92.31%More than 20,000 .....89.51%

Figure 44: One-year retention rates, by size of company

The average retention rate for new graduate hires five years after graduation also is approximately the same as it has been over the past two surveys. The overall rate for new college hires five years after graduation is 68.9 percent in among current respondents compared with 69.2 percent and 67.6 percent in the 2011 and 2010 surveys, respectively.

As with one-year retention rates, there are differences across industries and size classifications in the five-year rates. As Figure 45 shows, four sectors stand out as having relatively high retention rates (80 percent and above) after five years. These are utilities (88 percent), information (87 percent), retail trade (85 percent), and oil and gas extraction (82 percent). By contrast, two industries stood out for their low retention rate at the five-year period. These were management consulting, which managed to retain only 55 percent of its new hires after five years on the job, and miscellaneous professional services, where the five-year retention rate was even lower at 49 percent. Management consulting has been close to the bottom on the five-year retention rate for the past three surveys.


Industry Mean


Utilities 88.20

Construction 70.75





Misc. Mfg. 73.44

Retail Trade 85.00

Transportation 70.40

Information 87.50







Government 77.80

Figure 45: Five-year retention rates, by industry

The relationship between company size and retention for the five-year period is very erratic in the current survey. In the past, the five-year rate has generally mirrored the one-year rate in its relationship to size. Currently, there is no clear pattern. The lowest rate was reported for firms with between 5,001 and 10,000 employees at just less than 57 percent, while the highest retention rate was for firms in the 1,000 to 2,500 range (77 percent). Overall there was no clear direction related to the size of the firm. (See Figure 46.)


Number of Employees Mean 500 or less ..................67.43%

500 - 1,000...................74.33%1,001 - 2,500 .............. 77.00%2,501 - 5,000 .............. 66.23%5,001 - 10,000.............56.67%10,001 - 20,000 ..........74.20%More than 20,000 .....70.81%

Figure 46: Five-year retention rates, by size of company

ROTATIONAL PROGRAMSOne factor that may influence the retention rates of different organizations is the onboarding process for new graduate hires.

One type of onboarding experience that has generated a considerable amount of interest in recent years is a rotational program. Such a program has candidates move into different departments, positions, or even locations throughout the organization in their initial period with the company. The idea is to identify the best fit for the individual talents of the new hire and the needs of the organization. Presumably, identifying this mix will provide a better work experience in the long run and a longer tenure with the organization.

Rotational programs are not uncommon among NACE organizations, but they are also not the norm. This is the second year this form of onboarding has been examined, and the percent of firms using rotational programs has stayed approximately the same, if not showing some indication of decreasing. Forty-one percent of 2012 survey respondents reported having a rotational program of some sort for their new hires. This compares with the 44 percent who reported such programs in the 2011 survey.


Number of Employees

Rotational Program

Yes No

Responses % of Responses Responses % of Responses

500 or less 7 28.0% 18 72.0%

501 - 1,000 4 17.4% 19 82.6%

1,001 - 2,500 16 44.4% 20 55.6%

2,501 - 5,000 14 48.3% 15 51.7%

5,001 - 10,000 17 39.5% 26 60.5%

10,001 - 20,000 11 47.8% 12 52.2%

More than 20,000 29 51.8% 27 48.2%

Figure 47: Rotational programs, by size of company

Size is not the only demographic associated with rotational programs. This form of onboarding is very much aligned with firms in the manufacturing sector and relatively uncommon among service-sector firms and government agencies. (See Figure 48.) Again, these findings are consistent with those encountered in the 2011 survey.

In terms of size, rotational programs can be clearly associated with larger companies. As Figure 47 shows, firms with fewer than 1,001 employees are very unlikely to have a rotational program; it is not until the size of the firm exceeds 20,000 employees that a majority of the respondents reported having rotations. The only change from the 2011 survey results is that the proportion of firms in the large size categories that report having a rotational program has diminished somewhat.


Industry

Rotational Program

Yes No

Responses % of Responses Responses % of Responses

Oil & Gas Extraction 4 80.0% 1 20.0%

Utilities 2 18.2% 9 81.8%

Construction 4 40.0% 6 60.0%

Food & Beverage Mfg. 3 27.3% 8 72.7%

Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 13 59.1% 9 40.9%

Computer & Electronics Mfg. 9 39.1% 14 60.9%

Motor Vehicle Mfg. 9 81.8% 2 18.2%

Misc. Mfg. 13 65.0% 7 35.0%

Retail Trade 3 25.0% 9 75.0%

Transportation 2 28.6% 5 71.4%

Information 4 30.8% 9 69.2%

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 14 60.9% 9 39.1%

Accounting Services 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Engineering Services 3 21.4% 11 78.6%

Management Consulting 3 17.6% 14 82.4%

Misc. Prof. Services 1 8.3% 11 91.7%

Recreation & Hospitality 2 50.0% 2 50.0%

Misc. Support Services 2 33.3% 4 66.7%

Government 3 50.0% 3 50.0%

Figure 48: Rotational programs, by industry


To provide a sense of how these rotational programs work, respondents with rotational programs answered a series of questions about the operation of their programs. Respondents were asked what percentage of new graduates goes through their programs. Overall, the average percentage is approximately 61 percent. However, there is a considerable range in this percentage. A good deal of the variation appears to be associated with the size of the company that has the rotational program. So, while smaller employers are less likely to have a rotational program, those that do will funnel a greater percentage of their new hires through a rotation than their larger counterparts. As Figure 49 shows, firms with 5,000 employees or less average in a range of between two-thirds and 96 percent of new graduate employees being involved in their rotational programs; firms with more than 5,000 employees tend to average less than 50 percent of their new hires in the rotational programs.

Percent of College Hires in Rotation

Number of Employees Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75

500 or less 50.00 83.57 100.00 100.00

501 - 1,000 92.50 96.25 100.00 100.00

1,001 - 2,500 50.00 72.20 75.00 100.00

2,501 - 5,000 40.00 66.15 50.00 100.00

5,001 - 10,000 15.00 43.00 35.00 62.00

10,001 - 20,000 12.00 47.60 19.00 100.00

More than 20,000 20.00 53.27 50.00 95.00

Figure 49: Percent of new recruits involved in rotational programs, by size of company

The second question asked whether new recruits rotated through different departments, different positions, and/or different locations within the company. Figure 50 indicates that rotations generally involved a multiplicity of changes for the new recruit. Almost all respondents with such programs (84 percent) indicated that recruits experienced work in different departments within the organization as part of the rotation, while two-thirds had their new hires experience different job positions in addition to rotating through the departments. Interestingly, there was even a good deal of change in location that came as part of these programs. More than half of the programs took place at various sites in the United States, while approximately 15 percent required the new hires to experience work life in different parts of the world.

Rotational Structure Responses % of Respondents

Department Rotation 81 84.4%

Position Rotation 64 66.7%

U.S. Location 49 51.0%

Global Location 14 14.6%

Figure 50: Rotational structures


The final questions asked about the length of rotations and the amount of time new recruits spent in each portion of the rotation. Here there was considerable consensus. As Figure 51 shows, most firms using a rotation program have new recruits stay in the program for more than a year. Nearly 40 percent reported an overall rotation length of one to two years, and nearly the same amount reported having a rotation length other than one of the specified choices. It turns out that virtually all these “other” responses were for durations that exceeded two years—three years being the duration of choice among this “other” group.

Length of Rotation Program Responses % of Respondents

6

3 to 6 Months

6 Months to 1 Year 11

1 to 2 Years

Other 36

Length of Rotation Program Responses % of Respondents

3 Weeks or less 6 6.6%

3 to 6 Weeks 4 4.4%

6 Weeks to 3 Months 11 12.1%

3 to 6 Months 31 34.1%

Other 39 42.9%

Figure 51: Overall duration of rotational program

Figure 52: Overall duration of rotational segments

A similar situation existed for the duration of program segments. As Figure 52 indicates, the plurality of respondents (43 percent) chose the “other” option to indicate that they had rotation segments that lasted beyond six months. The dominant response in this category was six months to one year for the duration that a new recruit would spend in a particular segment.


SUMMARYThe 2011-12 recruiting season was a very stable period for college recruiters. The number of graduates hired for both full-time positions and internships increased, but the overall activity level and methods used to recruit these candidates changed little from 2010-11.

The use of social networking in college recruiting did grow again, but this growth did little to impact traditional aspects of finding and interacting with potential new hires. If there was an effect, it was on the overall cost of advertising related to college recruiting, which registered at the smallest percentage of costs related to talent acquisition in this arena (3 percent of overall costs).

The trend data that stand out in this report is the continuing advance in the skill levels required by employers in their overall hiring. Two pieces of data point in this direction. One, the percentage of overall new hires that came from college recruiting increased to 51 percent in 2012—a jump from the 2011 survey of 45 percent. Two, the percentage of new college hires with advanced degrees also increased. Nearly one-fourth of new college hires were students with a master’s degree or above in 2011-12 compared with less than 20 percent in 2010-11.

To date, the changes taking place in the focus of college recruiting have had little impact on the techniques and the costs associated with accessing this talent. Recruiters still target the same type of schools and focus on the same criteria in selecting these institutions. The availability of specific majors and the perception of “quality” in a school’s program are the chief criteria used in selecting a school as a target, even though there is little evidence that these elements make a significant positive difference in better offer and acceptance rates. Continuing to rely on these criteria appears to be more an article of faith than one based on evidence. Less than half of all employers conduct periodic evaluations of their campus relationships to determine their efficacy.

The cost-per-hire for college recruiting changed little: There was a nominal increase of 1.6 percent in the 2011-12 recruiting season over the cost-per-hire in 2010-11. As always, these numbers need to be quoted with a great deal of caution as few respondents were able to provide detailed cost information for their recruiting programs.

Based on the trends over the past several years, there is every expectation that the 2012-13 will show little difference in most recruiting benchmarks. The interesting aspects to watch closely during 2012-13 are whether the trend to hiring more students with advanced degrees continues and whether firms undertake more critical evaluations of their programs in an effort to effectively assess their on campus relationships, their branding initiatives to students, and the results of their talent acquisition efforts.


APPENDIX

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICSRespondents were widely distributed across industry types and geographic regions, but were relatively concentrated in terms of size. This profile is consistent with the firms that traditionally field relatively intense college recruiting efforts characterized by organizational units that are dedicated to college relations and college recruiting.

Figure 53 details the distribution of respondents among industry categories. Virtually all types of industrial sectors are represented among the respondent group with a couple of categories showing particularly strong representation. These categories include manufacturing (36.4 percent); professional services (20.3 percent); and finance (9.5 percent).3 One aspect of respondent demographics to note in this survey is the relatively low participation of employers in the public sector. This is a traditionally strong college recruiting arena, but has diminished recently due to budget constraints brought on by the recession and its relatively meager recovery.

3. The manufacturing sector includes food and beverage; pharmaceuticals/chemicals; electronics/computer; motor vehicle; and miscellaneous manufacturers. Professional services is a combination of accounting services; engineering services; management consulting; and miscellaneous professional services. Finance is identified as finance and real estate in Figure 53.


Industry Responses % of Respondents

Agriculture 1 0.4%

Oil & Gas Extraction 5 2.1%

Utilities 11 4.5%

Construction 10 4.1%

Food & Beverage Mfg. 11 4.5%

Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 22 9.1%

Computer & Electronics Mfg. 23 9.5%

Motor Vehicle Mfg. 12 5.0%

Misc. Mfg. 20 8.3%

Wholesale Trade 4 1.7%

Retail Trade 12 5.0%

Transportation 7 2.9%

Messaging & Warehouse 1 0.4%

Information 13 5.4%

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 23 9.5%

Accounting Services 6 2.5%

Engineering Services 14 5.8%

Management Consulting 17 7.0%

Misc. Prof. Services 12 5.0%

Social Services 2 0.8%

Recreation & Hospitality 4 1.7%

Misc. Support Services 6 2.5%

Government 6 2.5%

Total 242 100.0%

Figure 53: Respondents, by industry


Region Responses % of Respondents

New England 19 7.9%

Mid-Atlantic 57 23.6%

Southeast 23 9.5%

Great Lakes 52 21.5%

Plains 19 7.9%

Southwest 42 17.4%

Rocky Mountains 4 1.7%

Far West 26 10.7%

Total 242 100.0%

Figure 54: Respondents, by region

Figure 54 presents the regional representation. The figure shows a concentration of respondents in the northeastern United States (approximately one-third of respondents are located in the New England and Mid-Atlantic states), but there is sufficient representation from most areas of the country with the exception of the Rocky Mountain region.4

Finally, Figure 55 shows the distribution of survey respondents by size.5 There is a clear concentration among firms of a relatively large size. Nearly 80 percent of the respondents represent firms or business units with more than 1,000 employees and fully 23.7 percent are reporting for firms with over 20,000 employees. However, this distribution is consistent with the overall employer membership at NACE and with the size of firms most intensely involved in college recruiting generally. Survey results based on this respondent profile should be applicable to college relations programs and college recruiting activity for the U.S. as a whole.

Number of Employees Responses % of Respondents

500 or less 25 10.6%

501 - 1,000 23 9.7%

1,001 - 2,500 36 15.3%

2,500 - 5,000 30 12.7%

5,001 - 10,000 43 18.2%

10,001 - 20,000 23 9.7%

More than 20,000 56 23.7%

Total 236 100.0%

Figure 55: Respondents, by size of company

4. The survey was distributed into regional categories in the following manner: New England – Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut; Mid-Atlantic – New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia; Southeast – West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana; Great Lakes – Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin; Plains – Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas; Southwest – Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona; Rocky Mountain – Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah; Far West – Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii.

5. Size is defined by the number of employees at the business unit or organizational division for which the respondent is reporting.


PARTICIPATING FIRMS

ACCO Brands CorporationAcquity GroupADPAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc.Aetna Inc.AflacAgilent Technologies, Inc.Air Products & Chemicals Inc.Alcatel-LucentAllscriptsAmerican Airlines Inc.American Eagle OutfittersAmgen Inc.ARAMARKARCADIS US Inc.ArupAspen Technology Inc.ATI Allegheny Ludlum

CorporationAvant Energy ServicesBankers Life & Casualty Co.Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.Black & Veatch CorporationBoy Scouts of AmericaBrocade Communications

Systems, Inc.C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.Capital OneCelanese InternationalCenterPoint Energy, Inc.CGI FederalCH2M HILLChampion TechnologiesCharles River AssociatesChevron CorporationChevron Phillips Chemical

Company LPCitrix Systems, Inc.Cliffs Natural ResourcesCNACNA InsuranceCognizant Technology

SolutionsCompass Group North

AmericaConAgra Foods, Inc.Consolidated GraphicsContinental AGCostar Group, Inc.Country Insurance & Financial

ServicesCovance Inc.

Crestron ElectronicsCrossmarkDaymon WorldwideDeere & CompanyDell, Inc.Delphi Automotive Systems,

LLCDevon Energy CorporationDewberryDiscover Financial ServicesDow Corning CorporationDRS RSTA - Texas (Infrared

Technologies)Duff & Phelps LLCdunnhumbyUSADuPontEaton CorporationeBay Inc.Ernst & Young LLPExelFederal Energy Regulatory

CommissionFirstEnergy CorporationFirstEnergy CorporationFMC Technologies, Inc.Freddie MacFujitsu Network

Communications Inc.GAF CorporationGeneral Mills Inc.Genworth FinancialGeorgia Tech Research

InstituteGoodrich - Aerostructures

GroupGoodrich CorporationGreat Lakes Dredge & Dock

CompanyH.J. Heinz CompanyHajoca CorporationHallmark CardsHarris CorporationHazen and Sawyer P.C.Hitachi ConsultingHNTB CompaniesHonda R&D Americas, Inc.Horne LLPHuntington Ingalls IndustriesHuron Consulting GroupINEOSIngersoll-Rand CompanyInternational Game Technology

Kearney & CompanyKennedy & Coe LLCKPMG LLPKronosLangan Engineering &

Environmental ServicesLiberty Mutual Insurance

CompanyLife Technologies Inc.Longview Fibre Paper and

Packaging, Inc.L’Oreal USALowe’s Companies, Inc.Lutron Electronics Co. Inc.Macy’s, Inc.Magellan Midstream

Partners, L.P.MaximusMercerMerck & Co., Inc.Merck & Co., Inc.Meritor Inc.Messer Construction Co.Michelin North AmericaMicron Technology, Inc.Milliken & CompanyN.E.W.National InstrumentsNaval Acquisition Career

CenterNavistar, Inc.Newfield Exploration

CompanyNorfolk Southern Corp.Northrop Grumman

CorporationOCCOlsson AssociatesOlympus Corporation of the

AmericasOwens CorningOwens-Illinois Inc.Pacific Gas and Electric

CompanyPariveda Solutions Inc.Phillips Plastics CorporationPolaris Industries, Inc.PrimeSource Building

Products, Inc.Principal Financial GroupProcter & Gamble Co.Progressive Insurance

Protiviti Inc.PSEGRalcorp Holdings, Inc.Reznick Group, P.C.Rio TintoRolls-Royce CorporationRoss Stores Inc.Roux Associates, Inc.SABIC Innovative PlasticsSanDiskSavannah River Nuclear

SolutionsSave-A-LotSchlumberger Oilfield ServicesSchneider ElectricShawmut Design and

ConstructionSouthwestern CompanySuffolk Construction Company,

Inc.SWIFTTennessee Valley AuthorityTeradata CorporationTextron Inc.Thales Communications Inc.The Bank of New York Mellon

CorporationThe Dow Chemical CompanyThe Hershey CompanyThe Kroger Co.The MathWorks Inc.The Northern Trust CompanyThe Rehmann GroupThe Schwan Food CompanyThe Timken CompanyThe Vanguard GroupTIC-The Industrial CompanyTindall CorporationTowers WatsonTurner Construction CompanyU.S. Comptroller of the CurrencyU.S. Nuclear Regulatory

CommissionUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.Valero Energy CorporationWarner Robins Air

Logistics Ctr.WellPoint, Inc.WESCO International, Inc.Woolpert LLPZachryZS Associates



www.naceweb.org

Documents

Recruiting benchmarks survey_report