**Please note that these web pages and the applications on them have been archived here in August of 2019 as part of a SiteFarm migration project and are not currently being maintained. If you are using these pages, we would appreciate learning more about your use case. Please contact Laura Cerruti (lmcerruti@ucdavis.edu) and let us know how you are currently using these pages and what you types of tools you would like to have in the future related to your recruitment efforts.**


The purpose of the web application is to provide the tools to analyze past departmental academic recruitment history. With this information Deans Offices and departments should be able to more readily identify areas where efforts to recruit traditionally underrepresented groups may be falling short. This site should also help the Deans Offices better understand the conclusions reached by Academic Personnel and also provide an opportunity to hold Academic Personnel accountable for those conclusions. Finally, departments can be allowed to view the analysis section (with the current roster removed) and their current goals report.

The web site is broken down into four sections: the College's/Division's latest ladder-rank faculty goals, unit analysis, latest academic goals, and administration of departmental access/support tables. Use the dropdown boxes and the 'View' buttons to obtain information. 


College/Division Faculty Goals

The Division goals are the latest official ladder-rank faculty goals for the user's College or Division and is provided as a quick big-picture overview.

View Unit Analysis

The dropdown menu is made up of the Diversity Datawarehouse organizations in the user's College/Division, searches can also be modified by year, and non-ladder rank titles can be included by clicking off the checkbox. 

The analysis is made up of three sections.  The first and most important is detail on each search during the selected period, with the total, female, people of color, people of color less Asian, numbers for applicants and interviewees, and the results of the search.   Note that where a recruitment resulted in two or more hires that the recruitment is only counted once in the totals section. 

The search history can also be downloaded into Excel. The Excel version includes the applicant and interview figures for each ethnicity group, the female component of each ethnicity group, starting with 2011 searches the make-up of the search committee, and search waiver hires. 

The second section is a summary of the workforce by gender and ethnicity, with one of the two tables further breaking out the information by rank.   The final section is a roster of the current faculty, including their rank, gender, and ethnicity.   The roster is mainly for resolving discussions with units regarding who is being counted in the unit, and possibly a tip-off to why the number of minority candidates might be disputed. These can also be downloaded to Excel. 

View Unit Academic Goals Report

The latest academic goals report for an organization can be viewed here.  Note that the report includes a few additional items not found on the official goal report: People of Color figures, non-Asian People of Color figures, and the number of Tenured and Tenure-track faculty.  This report can be downloaded in to Excel.

Performing Analysis

The two previous sections provide the numbers that Academic Personnel uses when responding to academic recruitment upgrade requests.   The actual analyses have an intuitive element and can include information outside the figures.   With that in mind, the following list of items to consider are suggestions and not a checklist:

  • Do goals exist, if so be particularly tight with the department in those areas
  • Note the percentage availabilities, if small availabilities and a goal is present then stronger issue, if larger availabilities then how large is the goal?
  • Often times real departmental issues are seen in the totals
  • Have the recent hires addressed departmental goals - are efforts being made at the interview/application level?
  • If no goals, do the applicant/interview pools reflect good outreach efforts?
  • Note successes in particularly diverse searches, increases can be due to the recruitment area emphasized but often times are the result of experimenting with new outreach methods and/or particular member(s) on the search committee.

The Administration section has three parts: administering departmental access to the site, a list of the mapping of organization unit codes to PPS Home Department Codes, and a list of the mapping of organization unit codes to Field of Service codes.   Users can also download a list of Field of Service codes by clicking on the link 'Download Available Field of Service' codes in the section 'Display Mappings of Organization Unit Codes to Field of Sericce Codes' section.   Please contact Academic Affairs with any desired mapping changes. 

How Availability is Determined

The figures are based on an annual survey of PhD's performed by the National Organization Research Center (NORC) on behalf of six federal agencies (National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, Department of Education, National Endowment for the Humanities, United States Department of Agriculture, and NASA).   The latest year's results can be viewed on the NORC web site, a good overview can be found on the NSF web site at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/.  The survey includes gender/ethnicity and the field of service most closely associated with a given PhD's study.  

The UC Office of the President (UCOP) receives a narrower scope of PhD production information each year from NORC that is limited to U.S. Citizen and Permanent Resident doctoral degree recipients.   The data also covers PhD production over the last 2 to 21 years.   UCOP breaks the data into two groups, 5 year availability (PhD production 2-6 years ago) and 15 year availability (7-21 years ago).

The Davis portion of the process is mapping departments to field of service codes. The codes used are chosen by the department and the department should feel free to request an update of the codes being used. Note that alternative sources for generating goals can also be requested: availability pools are also generated based on information from the National Center for Educational Statistics (Law School, UNEX, and the Library), the Association of Research Librarians (the Library uses two sources), the American Association of Medical Colleges, the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

Definitions, notes, and sources

Advertising venues - A list of advertising venues has been made available by the Northern California Higher Education Recruitment Consortium and can be downloaded here. 

Blue text - Indicates more information can be viewed by moving the mouse over the text. 

Diversity Datawarehouse organization codes - These codes are used by the Diversity Datawarehouse and HRs Job Machine to group the campus PPS Home Department Codes into unique group structures.  The mappings can be viewed in the 'Division Administration Section', 'Display Mappings of Home Department Codes to Organization Unit Codes'. 

Faculty person - A faculty person is only counted once in the Diversity Datawarehouse, with the person's current primary title code and home department code controlling where the person is counted.  Note that Academic Administrators (ex: Deans) are counted as part of the Academic Administration campus goals, not as part of a department's goals. 

Final Recruitment Report Checklist - Checklist developed by the CAES Dean's Office used by Academic Personnel to analyze compliance wiht UCD APM 500 and best practices.   A copy of the current version of the checklist can be downloaded here.

OS - Field of Service codes. Primarily these are PhD production areas as provided by the NSF, via UCOP.   Alternative sources are used for SOM, SOVM, SOL, and the Library.

Goals - Goals are determined by calculating: tenure track faculty times five year availability pluc tenured faculty time fifteen year availability with the resulting number rounded to nearest whole number. From this the number of people in the category is subtracted, if the result is a positive number then a goal is present.


  • A department has 23 total faculty of which 10 are women
  • There are 4 tenure track faculty and five year workforce availability is 59.1%.
  • There are 19 tenured faculty and fifteen year workforce availability is 57.4%.
  • The calculation is 4*.591 + 19*.574 - 10 = 2.36 + 10.91 - 10 = 13.27 - 10 which rounds to 3.

Partial FTE - Federal compliance drives the Diversity DW treating a person as in one department and one title code.   This approach works well at the campus level and pretty well at the Divisional level.   In the case of departments, though, this can cause frustration and any department who would like to point out partial FTEs shared with another unit should be allowed to do so.   The primary purpose of the departmental view is to help department's understand their current situation and should not be viewed by them as an unfair burden. 

People Of Color Less Asian - This group is used to still obtain the advantages of combining small percentages while removing the often times masking effects of including Asians in the combined total. 

Reporting an error - All errors no matter how small or questionable are worth reporting to academic personnel.  Patterns in issues raised or hidden major issues can often arise from even minor points.

Unofficial workforce data - The data is built off of the daily workforce build.  The daily build is not checked for data integrity errors as opposed to the official workforce snapshots (taken October 31st of each year) which are analyzed for data issues.