UPDATE January 22, 2014: Arkansas Blog has pointed to this post in connection with new allegations about the violation of personnel rules at the UA. As reported below, the University is obliged to perform an annual workforce analysis for equal employment compliance. As reported, the last workforce analysis is almost 2 years old and as of this writing, there has been no update. The Affirmative Action Plan also requires the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Compliance (OEOC, formerly the Office of Affirmative Action) to “conduct an annual audit of salary awards and adjustments, by sex and race, for each academic department. The audit is to be done no later than November 30th of each year.”. These audits were requested under FOIA and none were provided by the UA. Instead, the OEOC director, Danielle Wood, stated that the workforce analysis complied with the audit requirement. Recall that the workforce analysis was not done for 2013 or 2014 and that it doesn’t include any data about salary adjustments. Further, the workforce analysis is simply a compilation of data, not an audit. There is no indication that the workforce analyses were actually ever audited, and no records reflecting any review were provided by the UA. We have to conclude that the required audits are not being conducted, in non-compliance with UA policy and federal anti-discrimination requirements.
Finally, personnel policy requires the annual conduct of what is known as an Availability Analysis to identify under-representation of women and minority for each job group. These analyses were also requested from the UA and OEOC director Wood provided one analysis for 2003 and one for 2011, stating that no other records existed. The 2011 analysis was compared with OIR data and it turned out that it vastly overstated women and minority representation among faculty. The discrepancy was pointed out to Wood and UA general counsel. Details will be published in a forthcoming post of its own. As of this writing, no accurate and up-to-date Availability Analysis was provided by the UA.
According to the University of Arkansas’ Affirmative Action Plan (pdf) and in accordance with federal anti-discrimination law, the University of Arkansas is required to annually conduct a Workforce Analysis that lists the salaries of all employees (anonymized) by department or unit, indicating gender and minority status. The reports are an interesting source of information about the pay structure at the institution. On inspection can easily determine gender disparities, as is the case for example in many science departments (Biology p. 66, CAST, p. 68, Chemistry p. 69, Geosciences p. 77, Physics p. 86 of 2012 report).
Workforce Analysis FY2012 (pdf)
Workforce Analysis FY2011 (pdf)
Workforce Analysis FY2010 (pdf)
Workforce Analysis FY2009 (pdf)
Workforce Analysis FY2008 (pdf)
Workforce Analysis FY2007 (pdf)
Workforce Analysis FY2006 (pdf)
Workforce Analysis FY2005 (pdf)
The Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) specifies in particular (p. 28):
“3. The workforce analysis will be updated at least annually and is supplemented by annual EEO-6 reports, by a computerized list of employees by title and department and by monthly summaries of appointments, terminations, transfers and promotions maintained in the Office of Affirmative Action.
4. The faculty statistics within the workforce analysis is reviewed at least annually in relation to national availability data to identify underutilization of women and minorities. It is also used to identify any clustering of women and minority faculty in particular academic ranks.”
The reports are not published but are of course subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The most recent analysis to date was conducted about March 2012 for FY2012. No FY2013 report has been provided so far and University officials have not responded to questions about why the report was delayed and when it will be available. The “supplemental” documents mentioned in the AAP appear not to exist and neither is there any evidence of an annual review “to identify underutilization of women and minorities”. The report is simply sent to all unit heads with the request to “make any necessary corrections” (accompanying letter (pdf)). It appears unlikely that any review takes place and that any “corrections” are ever made; at least no records to that effect have been disclosed. It is easy to verify underutulization and clustering by looking at the data of the Office of Institutional research.