Affirmative action program university of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst, Massachusetts

Collective bargaining agreements require that qualified internal applicants be considered before applications from external persons are evaluated, unless the position is underutilized for women or minorities and targeted by the EO&D Office for special consideration of qualified applicants from the underutilized group(s). When a position is targeted, applicant flow is altered so that applications from underutilized group members are considered before those of other applicants.

Table 14, Hire Rate and Determination of Adverse Impact, EAM, Faculty, and Professional/Non-Faculty Job Groups, 2009 - 2010 (p. 48) examines the selection rate for women and minorities among searches conducted for full-time EAM, faculty and professional/non-faculty positions. This table displays the total number of hires made, the total hire rate (number of applicants selected/total number of applicants), gender-specific hire rates, determination of adverse impact, (male rate vs. female rate), the non-minority hire rate, the minority hire rate, and determination of adverse impact (non-minority rate vs. minority rate). Evidence of adverse impact occurs when the protected class hire rate is less than 80% of the non-protected class hire rate. However, differences in selection rate may not constitute adverse impact where the differences are based on small numbers and are not statistically significant, or where special recruiting or other programs cause the pool of minority or female candidates to be atypical of the normal pool of applicants from that group (CFR 60-3.4 (D)). Therefore, in job groups where there was evidence of adverse impact, the shortfall between the actual number of female or minority hires and the expected number of these hires (based on the applicant pool composition) was calculated. If the shortfall was less than one person, this was also noted.

Between 4/1/09 and 3/31/10, 147 persons were hired into full-time EAM, faculty and professional/non-faculty positions filled though the search process. An analysis of gender-specific hire rates revealed that females were hired at a rate less than 80% of the male rate in three job groups (EAM B, Administrative and Technical). In EAM B, this difference did not exceed a one-person and did not constitute adverse action. In two job groups (Administrative and Technical) the difference exceeded a one person shortfall and thus constituted adverse action. Minorities were hired at a rate less than 80% of the non-minority hiring rate in six job groups. In two job groups (EAM C and Medical Care) there were no minority applicants. In the remaining four job groups (EAM B; Institutional Relations; Research/Post Doctorates; and Allied Health) this difference did not exceed a one-person shortfall, and therefore did not constitute adverse impact.

Information on applicant pool representation of females and minorities in EAM and Professional/Non-faculty job groups is presented in Table 15, The Representation of Women and Minorities in Search Pools for EAM and Professional/Non-Faculty Positions, 2009-2010 (p. 49). An applicant pool analysis revealed that the representation of women in the pools fell below 80% of the corresponding availability estimate in six of the 11 job groups in which searches for full-time positions were conducted (EAM A, EAM B, EAM C, Institutional Relations, Library Sciences and Technical). Representation of minority group applicants in the pools fell below 80% of the corresponding availability estimate in eight of the 11 job groups (EAM B, EAM C, Administrative, Education/Training; Institutional Relations; Library Sciences; Medicine Care and Technical). As part of the search process, applicant pool diversity is evaluated by the appointing authority. If the pool approximates the availability estimates, the search will go forward. If the pool does not approximate the available workforce, the appointing official will contact the EO&D Office to discuss how to proceed.